A busy week for the techlash warriors
We kept up— writing pieces on boundary-pushing at the FTC, commenting on the bizarre hot takes spewed at congressional hearings, debunking misguided op-eds, and being cited on satellite policy!
Loyal readers of this newsletter will remember my affection for scented candles. So when I discovered a Twitter thread about two fantastic but seemingly unrelated topics — candles and metaphysics — I knew I had to share it with you.
The author of the thread describes Yankee Candle’s products as evolving through eight “stages of abstraction.” The most literal offerings represent a “physical object where the object’s aroma is one of its distinct qualities,” like Black Cherry. Yankee Candle dives deeper into the intangible, evoking imagined locations like a “cliffside sunrise” or “autumn sunset.” (These remind me of those Bond No. 9 ads where they make a neighborhood-inspired fragrance and then hound that area’s inhabitants, asking whether the perfume accurately evokes where they live. “Uhhh… I guess hazelnut and moss remind me of Tribeca!”) Finally, the author explains, Yankee Candle reaches “total abstraction” with creations like Sweet Nothing.
All I can say about that is that it’s a good thing the same people who try to regulate tech aren’t regulating candles. They’d probably require a certain amount of “nothing” in Sweet Nothing — after all, transparency is crucial. Next on the wish list? A law to protect consumers by letting them choose whether or not they want their wax candle to contain any wax at all.
FTC. Late last week, Corbin made his proud debut in City Journal. His essay, “Is Lina Khan Courting a SCOTUS Rebuke?”—snappy editors’ title: “Regulator Beware”—discusses the several ways that the progressives at the FTC are testing constitutional boundaries. Aggressive FTC action could spur the Supreme Court to revive legislative non-delegation, curtail “Chevron deference,” or bring an end to agency independence.
On Tuesday, Andy published a shortened version of his FTC comments on Washington Legal Foundation’s blog, Legal Pulse. Andy argues that the FTC’s proposed change to its mission statement reflects the agency’s ambition of seizing more power over the economy. Andy implores the FTC to continue using a balanced regulatory approach which allows, not burdens, procompetitive conduct rather than wasting precious agency resources on a power grab. JustTheNews! quoted the post.
Social Media Regulation. It was a week full of Congressional grieving against “big tech,” with committees of both chambers discussing how to ruin the Internet to appease their base. In advance of Wednesday's Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security hearing about Instagram's effect on teens' mental health, Ari spoke with The Washington Times, explaining that the current techlash is a rehash of the moral panics that have targeted virtually every form of media ever known. Ari also unpacked the hearing on Twitter after it wrapped up, with video clips!
On Thursday, Ari live-tweeted the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology’s second hearing on “big tech accountability,” which featured yet more fear-mongering and falsehoods about the law. Ari also tweeted a quick-response analysis of Knight Foundation director Jameel Jaffer’s troubling New York Times op-ed arguing that content moderation should not receive full First Amendment protection so that the government can regulate privacy and transparency.
Algorithms. On Thursday, Andy live-tweeted the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security hearing on “Disrupting Dangerous Algorithms: Addressing the Harms of Persuasive Technology.” The hearing covered how companies use algorithms to curate and moderate content and usage on their digital platforms, including topics like data collection, digital advertising, misinformation, and AB testing. To set the stage, Andy shared a piece written by one of our interns, Santana Boulton, explaining that, under the First Amendment, restrictions on algorithms qualify as compelled speech. Computer code, like any other language, expresses protected speech. As Santana puts it, “The state can no more tell a company what code to write than it could tell them what to write in Latin.”
Space. Jim’s work on AST SpaceMobile has been cited in Vents Magazine and TrendingNewsBuzz. Jim has pointed out the dangers of the FCC granting “market access” to satellite companies which choose to get licenses from foreign regimes who are not signatories to the key outer space treaties.