The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday shed light on Silicon Valley’s failures to protect children online, but it also highlighted Congress’ longstanding inability to pass meaningful legislation to rein in tech platforms. This gridlock can be attributed to three main factors: lobbying and partisanship, disagreements over privacy and free speech, and conflicting priorities on who technology should serve.
Lobbying and partisanship play a significant role in hindering tech regulation. Tech companies spend millions of dollars in Washington to influence policymakers, utilizing campaign contributions, registered lobbyists, think tanks, advocacy groups, and trade associations. This formidable influence machine mirrors tactics used by industries like tobacco and fossil fuels. While lobbying is a democratic practice, the deep pockets of the tech industry give it a distinct advantage.
Differences between tech companies can also create openings for chaos. Microsoft’s recent support for the Kids Online Safety Act, despite having a small stake in social media, can make it difficult for rivals like Google. This phenomenon, known as “strategy credit,” allows companies to embrace legislation that benefits them while minimizing the impact on their own business.
The influence of outside groups is not the only obstacle to tech regulation. Conflicting priorities and incentives among lawmakers themselves contribute to the gridlock. Republican stonewalling has made it challenging for Congress to pass even basic functions, let alone sweeping tech regulation. GOP infighting, particularly at the committee level, has further stalled social media legislation in the House. Lawmakers’ vanity and desire for credit on an issue can also impede progress.
Congressional leaders like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Mike Johnson play crucial roles in setting the legislative agenda. Schumer’s requirement of a firm 60 votes to pass a bill and avoid a filibuster can be a significant obstacle. This approach limits bills lacking sufficient support from reaching the Senate floor. While a Schumer spokesperson claims that children’s online safety legislation is a priority, the impact of such statements remains to be seen.
Even when lawmakers agree on the problem, they often disagree on the solutions, resulting in multiple social media bills floating around Congress. A prime example is the debate over Section 230, which both parties criticize for different reasons. Conservatives argue it enables social media censorship, while Democrats claim it hampers accountability for hate speech and misinformation. These opposing perspectives lead to conflicting policy prescriptions and an inability to reconcile.
Some proposals require difficult tradeoffs, such as granting law enforcement greater surveillance power or giving attorneys general the authority to decide what content is too dangerous for children. Constitutional risks also limit certain legislation, as the United States cannot pass laws that infringe on First Amendment protections or restrict access to lawful content.
While tech companies and consumer groups agree on the need for a national privacy law, even this proposal faces challenges similar to social media regulation. The complexity of the issue and the appeal of simplistic sound bites make thoughtful regulations less appealing for TV coverage.
In conclusion, the gridlock in Congress regarding meaningful tech regulation stems from lobbying and partisanship, disagreements over privacy and free speech, and conflicting priorities among lawmakers. The deep pockets of the tech industry give it an advantage, while differences between tech companies can create chaos. Vanity and conflicting incentives further hinder progress. Despite the agreement on the need for a national privacy law, the challenges faced in social media regulation persist.