In the race to AI supremacy, few things are as important as having access to advanced computer chips. The United States and China are currently vying for the top spot, so it makes sense to implement rules to prevent China from obtaining these chips. Importantly, these rules must be robust enough to prevent loopholes. With unfettered access to cloud resources from Big Tech companies like Google and Amazon, the Chinese government and the companies under its control can access America’s advanced AI technology despite rules aimed at preventing them from doing so. The AI cloud loophole must be closed immediately.

China is banned under U.S. export controls from buying Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips, but not from renting them from cloud computing companies like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. The Commerce Department designates cloud computing as a service rather than a product, so export rules imposed by the Biden administration on product shipments to China fail to account for this glaring vulnerability.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo vocalized her concerns around this vulnerability back in January, around the same time a proposed rule was released from the Commerce Department focused on requiring providers of cloud services to identify and track foreign customers in order to “deter” malicious cyber activities. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives’s Foreign Affairs Committee, has reiterated the concern in Washington around this “loophole” and says, “[W]e are long overdue to address it.”

This week, legislation sponsored by Rep. Michael Lawler of New York aimed at ending this loophole passed the House with bipartisan support, but so far it has not gained much traction in the Senate. A spokesperson said that the Commerce Department is “seeking additional resources to strengthen our existing controls that restrict PRC companies from accessing advanced AI chips through remote access to cloud computing capability.”

Big Tech is more than happy to accommodate these requests from the Chinese if there is a profit to be made. The founder of a Shenzhen-based AI startup was easily offered access to Nvidia chips in overseas servers from both Google and Microsoft. Google seems to think that these business dealings are permitted under U.S. export controls, as no data centers reside within China proper.

AWS ranks sixth in cloud providers for the Chinese market. Through an intermediary, Shenzhen University was able to use AWS and get access to Nvidia’s chips for an “unspecified project.” Amazon claims it “complies with all applicable U.S. laws, including trade laws, regarding the provision of AWS services inside and outside of China.” Multiple other organizations linked to the Chinese government were discovered actively seeking access to these chips through cloud services.

When Nvidia modified its advanced chips in order to sell them in China, the Biden administration released new rules that would halt these sales. Through the AI cloud loophole, China is still able to maintain its unauthorized access. China is aware of the United States’ ability to cut off this access, but until the right steps are taken to materialize these threats, America’s greatest adversary will continue to mooch off American technology.

Access to these chips is vital for continued growth of Chinese AI capabilities. At one point before the initial restrictions were put in place on China, Nvidia accounted for 95 percent of the nation’s chip sales. Part of the dominance is explained by the performance of the chips. Another reason is the CUDA software that they run on. This software helps create parallelized software which is key in AI development.

The United States and China are locked in a heated battle for AI supremacy that will greatly impact the future global order. The current restrictions on advanced chip shipments to China that do not account for access to cloud services with those same chips are failing to meet the seriousness of this issue. To close this loophole, legislation such as the Remote Access Security Act should be passed by the Senate, and Commerce Department rulings should be updated to prohibit backdoor Chinese access to these chips. It is time to close the AI cloud loophole.

Caleb Larson is a cybersecurity researcher, policy analyst with the Internet Accountability Project, Heritage Foundation alum, and contributor at The Federalist, where he writes about cybersecurity-related issues facing the United States.

The post LARSON: Close the AI Cloud Loophole appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

The internet is currently controlled through searching, and if Google single-handedly dominates the means through which searching works, then Google effectively controls the internet.

Recently, a judge officially ruled that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” The Big Tech behemoth also engages in rampant censorship, placing “unauthoritative” voices in a digital ghetto. Now that Google is finally recognized as a bad actor in the search engine and ad industries, it is time to make sure that it does not continue to wield unparalleled control over the internet and consumers.

The main point of U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta’s August 5th ruling is that Google unlawfully spent large sums of money to serve as the default search engine for top web browsers. In 2021, Google paid Apple a whopping $18 billion to serve as its default search engine. The judgment also called out Google’s unreasonable ad costs that went above free market pricing.

Google was not only exerting total control over what users could find on the internet, but they were also preventing other companies from reaching these users.

Internet users do not often change the default search engine on their devices and browsers. Additionally, if they do not know the website they want to access at first, they are going straight to their search engine, most of the Google, to find what they are looking for. It makes sense then that Google would want to serve as the default search engine of widely used browsers while also making it more difficult to switch from that default. This strategy has allowed them to facilitate 99,000 search queries a second and obtain 92% of the search engine market.

Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, says that his company provides a better search engine service for users. However, the experience of many people and companies affected by Google’s antics betrays that claim.

The Internet’s Politics

Kansas Senator Roger Marshall plans to investigate Google for its decision to limit its suggested search autofill functionality from displaying “Trump” after users type “assassination attempt on” into the search field. Video emerged of former Google VP of Search Products Marissa Mayer revealing that Google prioritizes its own product links over its competitors despite the influence of other metrics like popularity.

In the lead up to the national vote in the U.K., Google banned the advertising account of Reform UK only to reinstate it after seeing the public outcry.

Google’s search behavior regarding the U.S. presidential election has been particularly awful. Research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein evaluated the behavior of Google’s algorithm for the last decade, and he found that in 2020 the results were so skewed to promote Biden that they resulted in six million votes shifting towards him.

Google was accused of burying the Rumble exclusive link to the GOP debate live stream by CEO Chris Pavlovski, who says that it put corporate media at the top of search results for the stream. MRC Free Speech America researchers were unable to find any 2024 presidential campaign websites of Republicans on the first page of search results a day before the first Republican Party presidential primary debate.

Instead, they saw the websites of Democrat candidates both current and past. The list of ways in which Google fails to provide a superior search experience could go on and on.

Google and AI

Google is now looking to fundamentally change the very nature of internet searching in their favor with AI. The new plan is for “Google [to] do the Googling” and entirely remove the last bit of influence that searchers still have on the results they find. Through summaries compiled through AI rather than traditional links, Google would essentially work as the one providing the answers to search queries. With this final step into their role as truth arbiter, Google has removed any doubt of their ambitions to obtain total control over the internet.

The recent judgment against Google and their monopoly provides a chance to stop this dystopian evolution of the internet into Google’s manipulation tool. Real change to the make-up of the search industry must come from proportionate penalties on Google for their actions.

We must not allow Google to maintain their monopoly over such a powerful tool as internet search. With it, they can silence voices contrary to their corporate agenda, rake in billions of dollars through advertisement pricing manipulation, and unfairly promote their own products and services.

The internet’s viability for promoting America’s wellbeing is directly tied to search engines, and it will never reach its full potential if Google continues to dominate in the current fashion.

Caleb Larson is a cybersecurity researcher, policy analyst with the Internet Accountability Project, Heritage Foundation alum, and contributor at The Federalist where he writes about cybersecurity-related issues facing the United States.

The post Google Controls the Internet … and Us! appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

It’s not just Google that has negatively affected conservatives through its online services or abused its platforms to favor itself. Apple is another global tech behemoth that is exercising excessive and undue content moderation on its platform. 

Without notice, Apple removed thousands of episodes of “The Glenn Beck Program” from Apple Podcasts on the morning of Aug. 16. Apple restored the popular show to its platform five hours later, blaming the removal on a trademark dispute. Host Glenn Beck said he received a notice from Apple about an issue with the show, but a link to more information contained therein simply informed him that Apple had removed his show. 

This episode illustrates the harm that Apple’s monopoly is causing to a flourishing internet. From the excessive fees and gatekeeping of its App Store to its greed-fueled support of the totalitarian Chinese government, Apple has shown it is abusing its monopoly power, which runs counter to America’s best interests as well as a free and open internet. 

When a consumer wants to download an app on his iPhone, there is only one shop in town — the Apple App Store. App developers must also play by Apple’s exploitative rules if they want to sell their services on the App Store. Once a developer earns $1 million in revenue, it must fork over 30 percent in fees. X CEO Elon Musk correctly labeled this fee a “30% tax on the Internet.” 

Presumably, having exorbitant fees and complete control over access to the App Store would mean Apple is equipped to prevent abuse of its platform. In reality, Apple’s App Store is consistently in the news for the opposite.  

Back in 2022, it was reported that cybersecurity researchers found TikTok bypassed certain security audits of its code run by Apple’s App Store. In 2019, cybersecurity company Trend Micro published a report showing it found hundreds of “fake” applications in the App Store, some ranking in the top 100, that could hide their true behavior during Apple’s review process. Even Pro-Big Tech outfit AEI had to cover the fact that the App Store was hosting “Pure Spyware” on the Chinese-built app My2022 for Olympic athletes, including useful hidden features like “continuous” voice monitoring. 

A man named Kosta Eleftheriou single-handedly exposed Apple’s inability to properly police its App Store by identifying high-revenue scam apps that Apple had overlooked. In 2015, cybersecurity firms found malware in more than 300 apps due to an issue with Apple’s developer tools, causing personal information to leak from Chinese-developed apps. The notion that Apple’s App Store is an impenetrable walled garden where no malicious app can enter is a falsehood. 

Apple’s faults go far beyond its App Store drama. In August 2021, it announced that photos stored in iCloud would be scanned for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). While the pursuit of such a mission may be admirable, the obvious privacy implications caused such an outcry that Apple ultimately walked back the decision. The widespread concern about this tool’s misuse is well warranted given Apple’s subservience to the Chinese Communist Party. 

In the wake of the Hong Kong protests, Apple rolled out an update to Chinese iPhones that would restrict the “Everyone” mode of AirDrop after 10 minutes, making it harder for Chinese dissidents to use “one of the few uncensored communication mediums in China.” During the zenith of the protests, Apple removed an app that allowed protesters to track the movements of police after an official CCP newspaper called out Apple for allowing it on the App Store. Apple lobbyists have also tried to prevent efforts to end forced labor in China, and CEO Tim Cook visited China multiple times to orchestrate a $275 billion investment deal that would help the company avoid CCP regulations. 

Apple’s dominance of the smartphone and app store industry combined with its high fees, lack of oversight, and exclusionary practices is making the internet a worse place for both innovation and freedom. Apple has consistently proven itself to be driven by greed and a dangerous political agenda. To hear firsthand, just ask Beck, the protesters in Hong Kong, or those harmed by predatory apps allowed on the iOS App Store. 

Apple’s monopolistic abuses should not dictate the freedoms of Americans online. Consumers deserve options in the application marketplace without sacrificing quality or bearing greater costs.

That is why Congress should pass vital legislation, such as the Open App Markets Act. This legislation would remove restrictions on consumers that stop them from downloading apps of their choice, while also preventing app stores from forcing their in-app payment systems on developers. Doing so would help to curb Big Tech interests and restore market balance for both consumers and competitors. It’s time to unshackle the online space from Big Tech and restore a free and open internet for its users. 

Caleb Larson is a cybersecurity researcher, policy analyst with the Internet Accountability Project, Heritage Foundation alum, and contributor at The Daily Caller, where he writes about cybersecurity-related issues facing the United States.

The post LARSON: Apple Will Curb Your Internet Freedom Until Congress Crushes Its Monopoly appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

In the current fevered media landscape, conservatives would be forgiven for missing the Google antitrust case, which is scheduled to go to trial in D.C. on Sept. 12. In ordinary times, the trial would likely be the ‘current thing’ for the media. These days, even the business-focused media has largely ignored it, which is a shame because the case is critically important.

The case was first filed by the Trump administration in 2020 but is being brought to trial by the Biden administration. This makes it one of the few nonpartisan, truly American products coming out of the DOJ these days. I have strong disagreements with the Biden DOJ on many fronts, but I agree with them on the need to prosecute this case against Google.

The case challenges Google’s business practices in the online search and search advertising markets, both of which the company has had a stranglehold upon for almost two decades. Because of Google’s gatekeeper role in these markets, many local newspaper publishers, along with conservative outlets, allege they have been shuttered as their advertising revenues were siphoned off and access was restricted by Google.

Additionally, Google’s search stranglehold has stymied competition and innovation online for decades. As the DOJ stated in 2020 when it announced the case,

“Twenty-five years ago, the Department of Justice sued Microsoft, paving the way for a new wave of innovative tech companies – including Google. The increased competition following the Microsoft case enabled Google to grow from a small start-up to an Internet behemoth.  Unfortunately, once Google itself gained dominance, it resorted to the same anticompetitive playbook. If we let Google continue its anticompetitive ways, we will lose the next wave of innovators and Americans may never get to benefit from the ‘next Google.’ The time has come to restore competition to this vital industry.”

This should be a position that all Americans, regardless of partisanship, can rally around. After all, competition and innovation are as American as it gets.

The second reason conservatives should support the DOJ in the Google case is because, if the DOJ wins, it would hold Google accountable under federal antitrust law for the first time in the company’s history. The case should be an antitrust slam dunk if the court applies the antitrust law as drafted by Congress, but those laws have been radically rewritten by Members of Congress under influence of legal scholars and jurists in recent decades.

The third reason starts with a question: what if the DOJ loses, and Google is allowed to continue its alleged track record of censorship and tracking of those who don’t toe the party line? Does that mean that if Google is indeed liable for these unethical practices, it will be immune from consequences for the foreseeable future and won’t change its ways? Possibly.

One might argue that a potential loss would underscore the need for Congressional action to update the antitrust laws for the digital era. The Internet Accountability Project (IAP) spent much of the last Congress advocating for targeted updates to federal antitrust law toward this end. We fought the good fight and thanks to leaders in Congress, including Senator Grassley in the Senate and Rep. Ken Buck in the House, a strong coalition rallied around legislation aimed at curbing Big Tech’s monopoly power.

However, Big Tech spent a record-setting hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the legislation. One of the core arguments Big Tech deployed in its campaign to defeat the legislation was that “existing antitrust laws can rein in Big Tech.” The upcoming Google case will make clear whether this argument is a valid one.

If it is not, and Google prevails in the upcoming DOJ case, then expect to hear IAP and other conservative organizations renew our calls for legislation to rein in not just Google but also the other Big Tech platforms before it is too late.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold these companies accountable for their bad acts. He was previously chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA.

The post DAVIS: Why Conservatives Must Support The DOJ Against Google appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Google owes an explanation for its spam filtering algorithm (SFA), which appears to be horribly biased against Republicans. This algorithm may have played a significant role in affecting contributions to political parties in the 2020 election. Republicans deserve equal treatment by email services, as this communication technology is nearly ubiquitous and should be non-partisan. Google must be held accountable for the bias in their SFA that skews so heavily in favor of Democrats, especially when that bias could shift the outcome of a presidential election.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently dismissed a complaint from the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed last April alleging unfair treatment of their fundraising emails by Google’s email service, Gmail. The FEC says it “found no reason to believe” that Google treated the RNC any differently than any other political group and that any differential treatment was unintentional.

However, the numbers suggest a completely different story. In the complaint, the RNC included findings from a study conducted by computer science researchers from North Carolina State University. These researchers set out to determine if any SFAs of three top email service providers had a bias for particular political emails. For Outlook and Yahoo, the discrepancies were reasonable, even showing a “bias” in favor of Republicans. Outlook sent 95.8% of left-leaning campaign emails to the spam folders of the researchers’ test email accounts. 75.4% of right-leaning campaign emails were similarly filtered by Outlook. Yahoo’s SFA resulted in a difference of 14.2% in favor of right-leaning emails.

Gmail on the other hand stands out like a sore thumb. 67.6% of emails from right-wing campaigns were sent to the spam folder, while only 8.2% of left-wing campaigns were given the same treatment. Republican fundraising emails were hidden from recipients at an 820% higher rate when compared to their left-leaning counterparts. Not only that, but the filtering rate increased for Republican-sourced emails as the election moved closer. This rate increase over time was suspiciously missing from Democrat-sourced emails. Both surprising findings are clearly highlighted in the RNC complaint.

These SFAs have a tremendous effect on fundraising efforts. The RNC claims this treatment has cost over two billion dollars in lost donations since 2019 and has hurt its get-out-the-vote campaigns. Whoever controls these SFAs would have immense power over political contributions to different political parties. It is no secret that Big Tech corporations like Google have a clear bias toward Democrats. With control of over 50% of email accounts in the U.S., Google’s influence over elections cannot be ignored.

The Twitter Files have revealed massive collusion between Democrats in government and Twitter under prior ownership. Similar exposés have shown that other Big Tech corporations, such as Facebook, are overtly working with Democrats in power to manipulate online discourse. With such a significant influence over email communication and a monopoly on internet search, Google would be a prime target for despots looking to control information flow. An investigation into this matter is paramount, as it is improbable that a benevolent billionaire, such as Elon Musk, will buy Google and expose any wrongdoing.

If truly an accident, Google would have to believe that a whopping 91.8% of Democrat campaign emails were “wanted” but only 32.4% of those sent by Republicans were wanted. More likely, Google genuinely finds Republicans and their emails to be “dangerous.” Prominent Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claim that Republicans engage in “stochastic terrorism.” If ideologically aligned people make up Google’s workforce, a company whose employees give overwhelmingly to Democrats, it would make sense for Gmail to treat emails from Republicans as “dangerous.”

If there was no accident and Google did intentionally censor Republicans, it would most certainly have played a role in the 2020 election due to its email service market share and the SFA tilting heavily in favor of Democrats. Despite the FEC’s foolish dismissal of the RNC complaint, House Republicans must continue investigating Google over this issue to find out the truth. Email is one of the backbones of internet communication, and U.S. citizens deserve equal use, no matter what Big Tech may think about their politics.

Caleb Larson is a cybersecurity researcher, policy analyst with the Internet Accountability Project, a Heritage Foundation alum, and contributor at Human Events where he writes about cybersecurity-related issues facing the United States.

The post LARSON: Congress Cannot Let Google’s Potential Election Email Censorship Off The Hook appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

National Review recently published an op-ed claiming that the bipartisan Open App Markets Act (OAMA) would “break” the app industry and “empower scam artists and endanger everyday consumers.” The piece repeatedly invoked Big Tech talking points like these to scare readers into believing the status quo of the app marketplace duopoly is completely acceptable, and any attempt to reform it would bring about the end of days.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention. Big Tech companies have spent unfathomable sums of money to evade accountability and prevent real competition. The truth is that the Open Apps Markets Act would ensure the app marketplace is freer, fairer, more competitive, and more accessible to small businesses.

In today’s app market, Google and Apple, which have a combined market capitalization of $4 trillion, control 99% of the app marketplace and use their gatekeeper control to their own advantage at the expense of smaller companies and startup apps. 

The claim OAMA would empower scam artists and endanger consumers has been debunked numerous times. In reality, OAMA would allow consumers to simply download apps directly to their mobile devices the same way they do on their Mac desktop or laptop computers. 

The failed status quo currently allows these companies to force consumers into downloading apps exclusively from their app stores and utilize their payment services, resulting in fewer options and inflated prices. It is worth noting that the two companies’ app stores are already littered with scam apps, and they have no incentive to fix this problem because there is no competition to their duopoly. The Washington Post reported scam apps from the Apple App Store have “bilked consumers out of an estimated $48 million.” Apple even profits from these scams as they take a cut of all revenue generated from the App Store.

The piece also commended Apple and Google for charging service fees for in-app transactions to cover development and other aspects of maintaining the marketplaces. It neglected to mention that nothing in OAMA would prevent Apple from charging for these services. Instead, OAMA provides developers with additional options to distribute their products through other channels.

The piece criticizes conservative sponsors, calling Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lumis, Marsha Blackburn, and John Kennedy “otherwise dependable conservative Republican senators.”

What this actually does is further demonstrate the broad support for OAMA and emphasizes the need for real reform. There are very few issues in today’s divisive political environment that garner bipartisan support. Liberal darlings like Amy Klobuchar and Richard Blumenthal joined forces with Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley because there is a groundswell of grassroots support for breaking up Big Tech and ending the app marketplace duopoly.

It is false to claim that under OAMA – Apple and Google would be prohibited from citing an app’s privacy or security features as a pretext to exclude them from being featured on their platforms. The bill specifically allows for the removal of apps that cause spam, fraud, or security concerns. The difference would be that the burden of proof would fall on the Big Tech companies.

The piece suggests the passage of OAMA would be the equivalent of forcing Walmart to “place every T-shirt and book on their shelves,” or Safeway to “carry every variety of cereal.” This flawed logic exposes a fundamental lack of understanding of what OAMA would do, while failing to grasp the reality of the app ecosystem. 

OAMA does not mandate that Apple and Google feature every app on their marketplaces. And unlike food and clothing industries, where you can sell t-shirts and cereal at any number of stores, there is only one app store for Android devices and one App store for Apple devices. The two entities are also siloed from one another, and you can’t download an app from one company’s marketplace and use it on the other device. 

More importantly, there are no viable alternatives to Apple and Google operating systems on mobile devices, and they control 99 percent of the market. They showed their duopoly in action just last year with the swift, politically motivated takedown of Parler. That wasn’t about protecting consumers, it was about inflicting financial misery on someone deemed to be a political opponent. At any moment, Apple and Google could decide to freeze an app or app developer out of the entire marketplace—maybe even Twitter for allowing online free speech. Ending this duopoly would create more competition, which would benefit the market and the consumer, just as it does in any other industry. 

The Open App Markets Act would break up Big Tech’s stranglehold on the app marketplace and finally allow small businesses to compete. Don’t let Big Tech convince you otherwise. Conservatives–and all Americans–should demand their Member of Congress support legislation to rein in Big Tech, including the Open App Markets Act.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold these companies accountable for their bad acts. He was previously chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA.

The post DAVIS: Big Tech Wants You To Ignore The App Market Duopoly appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Under the leadership of Elon Musk, Twitter may finally stop its efforts to enforce political censorship and instead focus on properly protecting its users, vulnerable children, and our nation’s tradition of free and open discourse. With his recent offer to buy Twitter at his original price, Musk has a chance to right the ship. The site may currently be safe for only one side of the public discourse, but it doesn’t have to be this way. If Elon Musk can finally purchase Twitter, he must have the courage to excise its current leftward slant and focus the Big Tech company’s efforts on solving the real issues it has with censorship, cybersecurity, and child exploitation material.

Musk now has a chance at overhauling the priorities of one of Big Tech’s most influential sites. It is no secret that Twitter is outright adversarial to conservatives who post content contrary to the “accepted” liberal narratives of the day. However, while Twitter focuses on censorship enforcement in the name of safety, there are dark and serious problems it refuses to solve through adequate attention and resource allocation.

In July, the former head of Twitter’s security, Peter Zatko, sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission outlining what he says are “extreme, egregious deficiencies in … user privacy, digital and physical security, and platform integrity / content moderation.” Instead of upholding their claim of a solid security plan, Zatko says Twitter overlooked vulnerable software, withheld breach information, and failed to protect user data and account integrity which led to the takeover of many high-profile accounts such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump. In regard to spam activity and the large number of bots on the platform – something about which Elon Musk has expressed reservations – Zatko claims that Twitter focused on growth rather than eliminating spam since executives financially gain from increasing users regardless of user quality or authenticity.

Even more sinister than lax cybersecurity controls is the presence of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on Twitter. Recently, many advertisers pulled their ads from Twitter after learning that they had been appearing next to tweets about CSAM. Ghost Data, a cybersecurity company that researched the prevalence of accounts posting CSAM related content on Twitter, found 500 accounts that had shared or requested CSAM over a 20-day period. Twitter only removed less than 30% of them. Those are unacceptable numbers for a company that declares it has “zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation.”

Perhaps it is to be expected from a company that was considering monetizing the prevalence of pornography on its site through a subscription service similar to OnlyFans, only to be stopped by an internal report that found “Twitter cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale.” Employees claim that executives know about the CSAM problem but do not do enough to address it. This is particularly troublesome given the 29.3 million reports of suspected child sexual exploitation received by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s Cyber Tipline in 2021, a 35% increase over 2020.

Twitter is a notorious Big Tech platform that focuses on censoring ideas and debate while apparently ignoring the security of its users, the quantity of spam posted, and the proliferation of child abuse material. Elon Musk has been able to generate positive outcomes in space exploration, electric vehicle innovation, and much more. He has indicated he has a vision for Twitter that would benefit public discourse. If he can complete the purchase of Twitter, he must refute the Big Tech consensus and dedicate its resources to defending the best of what the internet has to offer rather than ignoring or embracing the worst.

Instead of the punishment of viewpoints that go against the mainstream media’s narratives, there could be a flourishing of free information exchange uninhibited by top-down dictates and permanent bans. Healthy user growth could be prioritized by focusing on solving the spam issue, leading to more enjoyable experiences for users, greater profitability and a model for what an online public square should look like. Most importantly, unrelenting focus should be paid to relieving the plight of vulnerable children. All it would take is a bit of courage.

The post Daily Caller: LARSON: After Purchasing Twitter, Elon Musk Must Stop The Spam, Child Abuse, And Deplatforming appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

We keep being told that breaking up Silicon Valley monopolies will “harm national security.”

The Amazon-funded Chamber of Commerce warns that antitrust will “undermine our national security interests.” Facebook and Google claim their monopolistic power is of the utmost importance to America’s national security.

This is nonsensical. Antitrust legislation is only a threat to the profits and power of Silicon Valley giants. Allowing more competition in the online marketplace will empower consumers, not America’s adversaries. 

The constant shrieking about national security only makes sense when one remembers that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considers “disinformation” on social media a threat that needs to be addressed. DHS recently agreed with a recommendation from the agency’s inspector general to institute a “a unified strategy to counter disinformation campaigns that appear in social media.”

What does this look like in action? We saw one recent example when Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Facebook censored damaging stories about the Biden family on advice from the FBI. The label of “disinformation” was abused by partisan members of the so-called intelligence community to muddy the waters on stories originating from Hunter Biden’s laptop. 

The same tactic was used to silence criticism of draconian lockdowns and unnecessary mask policies. And just as with the coverage about the damaging contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, social media giants complied with government demands to censor information during the pandemic. 

White House officials, for example, pushed Twitter to ban journalist Alex Berenson. “They had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off the platform,” one Twitter employee wrote in an internal email after a meeting at the White House in April 2021.

Berenson was suspended a few months later in August. The suspension lasted almost a year and was only lifted due to a lawsuit from Berenson.

A lawsuit from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana has further revealed the power of White House demands. Emails obtained by the attorneys general show that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, assured the Surgeon General that they were censoring information to an effective degree. 

“I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation,” a “senior Meta executive” wrote to the Surgeon General in the days following Biden’s claim that Facebook is killing people. “We hear your call for us to do more and, as I said on the call, we’re committed to working toward our shared goal of helping America get on top of this pandemic.”

This bully pulpit control of information online is possible only because a handful of companies control the distribution of it. There’s a very limited number of necks the government has to apply pressure to get what it wants. The only solution is increasing competition and choice online. The Senate must act on the antitrust legislation on which its leaders have promised to hold a vote.

The bipartisan American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S.2992) will restore market competition and give conservatives alternatives that won’t censor them. For years, conservatives have been told to create alternative social media sites, but the stranglehold companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have on the marketplace has made this impossible. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act will empower entrepreneurs to create viable alternatives.

The Open App Markets Act (S.2710), also bipartisan legislation, is another bill that is needed to provide freedom online. Former President Donald Trump created his own platform with the Truth Social platform. However, it can’t reach 70 percent of phones because Google is not allowing users to download the app. The Open App Markets Act would allow people to download the app on their Android straight from Truth Social and end Google’s gatekeeping power.

Google is comfortable with their censorship because after all, the White House has designated former President Trump as a national security threat. Only in a world where free speech is the enemy does antitrust legislation empower our adversaries.

The post Town Hall: Antitrust Empowers Free Speech, Not America’s Adversaries appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division is currently on trial before Judge Nichols (the Trump appointee who oversaw Steve Bannon’s trial for contempt of Congress). The DOJ antitrust case challenges the proposed merger between United Healthcare and a data driven technology company named Change Healthcare. According to the DOJ, should Judge Nichols allow the merger to proceed, United would control a “critical data highway through which about half of all Americans’ health insurance claims pass each year.” This is because Change’s technology currently processes not only United insurance claims, but also insurance claims for most of United’s key competitors. Unless the DOJ is successful in blocking the merger, United will have access to treasure troves of competitive data from its rivals that it could use to throttle competition and eventually raise prices on American consumers.

The Internet Accountability Project is leading the fight to take on the monopoly power of Big Tech before it’s too late. Although United Healthcare is not a Big Tech platform, it is a Big Data platform in the healthcare markets in which it operates, making the DOJ’s case one which we are tracking. The similarities between how Big Tech uses data to throttle competition and the allegations in the DOJ’s complaint are striking. According to the DOJ, should the merger proceed, “United stands to see and potentially use its health insurance rivals’ competitively sensitive information for its own business purposes and control these competitors’ access to innovations in vital health care technology.” This kind of forced data sharing is business as usual for Big Tech platforms. Every day, Big Tech platforms use their market power to force smaller rivals to hand over competitively sensitive data in exchange for access to one or other Big Tech platforms. Big Tech then uses this data to undermine competition, chasing the smaller (often more innovative) rival from the marketplace. Having eliminated what rivals existed, Big Tech’s insurmountable data advantage becomes a lasting entry barrier against new entrants. This entry barrier protects and extends Big Tech’s monopoly, which is a win for Big Tech but a loss for competition and the American consumer.

The DOJ’s emphasis on the importance of data as a competitive tool in its United Healthcare case is a necessary and helpful step in the fight against Big Tech. Both United Healthcare and the Big Tech platforms including Google, Facebook and Amazon can and will use data as a stick to throttle competition. Worse yet, the data they use to throttle competition is often the very same data the competitor was forced to hand over to a Big Tech dominant platform under duress. Think about that for a minute: it’s like a thug telling someone they are going to be assaulted; but worse still, the thug is going to use the victim’s favorite baseball bat to commit the assault. 

We are counting on Judge Nichols to view the DOJ’s strong arguments against the United Healthcare merger in the correct light. The fight against Big Tech must include an understanding that Big Data is Big Tech’s weapon of choice to undermine and eventually kill their competition. At the Internet Accountability Project, we believe it’s time for conservatives to fight back against this un-American conduct before it is too late.

The post DAVIS: The Big Tech Case No One is Watching (But Should Be) appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Twenty years ago, you likely went to your front porch to pick up your newspaper in the morning or flipped on your TV to catch the news before work.

Ten years ago, you likely went to your favorite news website directly to see what was happening in your community and across the country.

Now, you likely peruse Facebook, Twitter, Google, or YouTube for the latest happenings.

The transformation of our news and information economy has given Big Tech companies unprecedented control over what news you see — or don’t see.

This power represents a grave threat to the future of our republic and the conservative movement. Just last year, Americans witnessed firsthand the power of Big Tech over our political debate and elections.

Not only did Facebook and Google hide news stories damaging to Democrats, but Silicon Valley barons like Mark Zuckerberg used their billions to interfere in our electoral process.

Conservative news outlets like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, Townhall.com, and RedState.com have all come out in favor of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) to claw back control from Silicon Valley.

The balance of power between the publishers of original news content and the Big Tech platforms that deliver it to consumers is tilted heavily in favor of the platforms, especially Google and Facebook.

These two companies capture up to 70 cents of every ad dollar spent while producing none of the content and determining which content we see. This means they decide that you can’t read conservative news and that conservative media can’t make a profit.

The JCPA empowers publishers to meet Big Tech at the bargaining table and negotiate payment for their valuable content. “The JCPA would benefit all publications — large and small, national and regional—that create original news content online,” the coalition of leading conservative publications wrote in a letter to Congress.

“Its benefit to news publishers and broadcasters with an editorial voice is critical, as we are all potential victims of viewpoint discrimination by the big tech companies.”

The bill not only has the support of several patriotic news outlets, but many conservative congressmen such as lawmakers: Reps. Ken Buck, R-Colo., Greg Steube, R-Fla.,  and Burgess Owens, R-Utah.

Some have dishonestly argued that this bill will end up empowering Big Media like The New York Times and The Washington Post. It won’t. The Wall Street Journal reported: “The latest version of the legislation would apply only to news outlets with fewer than 1,500 employees.”

This means that large liberal outlets won’t benefit from the same negotiating ability that will be granted to smaller, more independent outlets.

The bill will bloody Facebook’s nose and protect conservatives from discrimination online.

Rep. Buck is adding language to the JCPA to make it crystal clear the platforms can never discriminate against publications based on their political orientation, and that news publishers themselves cannot discriminate or exclude publications from joining their collective.

Furthermore, the measure will contain language that ensures small publishers are granted the same deal as larger publishers.

In other words, the criteria upon which compensation will be calculated applies to all publishers uniformly, not just the big guys, and the platforms must come to the table and negotiate in good faith with all publishers without picking off the most attractive publishers.

Under Buck’s proposed language, the platforms also cannot retaliate, such as downranking news publishers’ content, because they assert their rights under this legislation.

There is legitimate concern that Google and Facebook will still undercut less attractive publishers and pay them scraps.

A strong enforcement mechanism would guard against this.

A reasonable offer must be made by the platforms which considers outside commercial deals already made, investments in newsrooms, and the offer cannot be offset by the imaginary revenue from traffic — which should belong to the publishers anyway.

If that still doesn’t get small publishers an equitable deal, news publishers can invoke arbitration after a period of good faith negotiations.

The JCPA provides a course correction to the monopolistic practices of Big Tech and levels the playing field for small and independent media companies that conservatives have come to rely upon to get their news without a liberal slant.

As they say, knowledge is power.

If Republicans in Congress don’t act soon, a few Big Tech companies will continue to strengthen their control over the flow of information in our country.

That is a recipe for disaster and political ruin.

The post Newsmax: Mike Davis: Congress Must Stop Big Tech From Crushing Conservative News appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.