Telling moment at this panel discussion about antitrust, where the Republican guy admits that GOP interest in antitrust is probably limited *just* to punishing big tech, and likely does not apply to any other industry.

That's not a principled stance. It's not about actual antitrust complaints. It's about using antitrust to punish companies for speech choices they dislike

@mmasnick Principled and consistent with their utilitarian view of the law as a tool to be wielded to gain or maintain power.
@bbennettesq @mmasnick I’m now thinking if there’s ever been a time when The Law was NOT all about that…
@mmasnick Trump's "bloviating idiot" politics is making way for DeSantis' "competent authoritarian" politics.
@mmasnick so, he said the Quiet Part Out Loud™
@mmasnick Is there any institution of government, media or civil society that the conservative establishment sees as useful in itself rather than a tool for securing their place in economic and racial hierarchy?
Maybe the church?
@mmasnick Really wish the newfound GOP concern for antitrust was genuine, and not just a convenient cudgel
@tomvonclef @mmasnick If it were somebody would take a look at the House of the Mouse.
@mmasnick Notice how Sinclair Media never seems to come up

@mmasnick No other industry has essentially a blanket immunity law from misconduct. There isn't any other industry as woefully unregulated. Like, tech companies are how many of the Fortune 10 or so right now?

Why are you intentionally missing that big tech is the primary problem, and it's so obvious that both Republicans and Democrats agree on it.

@ocdtrekkie @mmasnick If you're talking about §230, that's not what §230 is.
@IronCurtain It's exactly what 230 is. And it's absolutely insane how unique it is as a loophole. It'd be like if someone signed a law that said "hey, no medical misconduct is ever illegal, like ever, signed, well-paid corrupt Congresscritter". But because it's the Internet and the media sources have been well-paid, people are like "oh yeah, nobody would treat medical issues if they were liable for doing it wrong!"
@ocdtrekkie Everything you said there was wrong. §230 just means that if I say something defamatory towards something else, I'm liable for it, and not my instance owner (who is busy maintaining the servers), and they can moderate how they see fit. In reality, the first amendment protects against this, but §230 just means that frivolous lawsuits could be dismissed earlier in the process.

@IronCurtain Nothing you said there is true at all. :) And not can I confirm I have heard that line of claims before and already know its false, but also point out claiming someone is entirely wrong without evidence isn't actually productive discussion.

The problem here is 230 isn't dismissing frivolous lawsuits. It's dismissing very high merit cases where tech companies kill people for profit without repercussions.

@ocdtrekkie Also, you're basically saying that if you tooted something defamatory, you'd want Eugen to be liable for your toot.

@mmasnick

The solution of course is black magic...
Imagine if you will....
"A Constitutional Carol" where the spirits of the founding fathers terrorize politicians into being better humans and going back to the original vision they had for the nation.

@That_AC @mmasnick To be honest, that may not be a good idea, considering that Benjamin Franklin was so racist he didn't even consider Swedes to be white.

@IronCurtain @mmasnick

A large swath of the GQP doesn't see me as human...

@That_AC @mmasnick I can say the same about plenty of the GQP: I'm both Jewish and autistic, as you know.

@mmasnick
Here is the direct link to the full hearing.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/examining-the-competitive-impact-of-the-proposed-kroger-albertsons-transaction

The 1hr 28m mark is what I think you are referring to. There is also Senator Hawley's remarks at 1hr 36m. The republican senators really seemed to focus on ESG with their line of questioning. The entire hearing is interesting if you have the time. I recommend changing the playback speed to 1.25.

Examining the Competitive Impact of the Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Transaction | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

@quest nope. not a congressional hearing. the comment i'm referring to was made on a panel at this conference i'm attending. but i'll check out the video.
@mmasnick
Is there a video or transcript available of the conference?
@mmasnick The Republicans have exactly one principle: them having their cake and eating it, too (preferably while everyone else starves).
@mmasnick To some minds "Antitrust" is just a magic word to say that makes it easier to cudgel one's contenders.
@mmasnick everything is about punishment for the Republican Party of Hitler.

@mmasnick Is this at Informed?

TD story coming up?

@dredmorbius yeah. at informed. not sure if i'll do a story on that point... but we'll see how much time i have.

@mmasnick You would have at least one interested reader.

If you count space alien cats as readers / target demographic.

@mmasnick when lately have the GOP taken principled stances?