I don't understand why @CarlSzabo from Google-funded advocacy group Netchoice is testifying. Google already had a representative in the last panel.
Now @CarlSzabo says that the UK's CMA remark is just a bad report. "They used the word 'might' more than a hundred times."

Never mind, I like Szabo testifying. He's making a great case, just not the one he thinks he's making.
This is fun. @SenMikeLee asks @CarlSzabo about the consumer welfare standard. "The consumer welfare standard doesn't give a freebie to Google right?"

Szabo won't answer. Lee has to do a follow-up to get him to admit that antitrust law can theoretically even be violated.
Big tech witnesses are so annoying at this point that they are making the antitrust case with their very behavior, even to Senators who really really want to be supportive.
Amy Klobuchar is noting extremely conservative courts have interpreted consumer welfare narrowly. The Bork-interpreted standard means plaintiffs have lost 16 cases and won 0 at the Supreme Court of late.
Szabo says that the fact that plaintiffs lose all their cases doesn't mean the consumer welfare standard is problematic. Europe has a different standard, he notes, and their tech is not particularly innovative. The only big tech company they have, he snorts, is Spotify.
Adam Heimlich is very impressive in describing how ad buying and selling actually works, because he's an industry practitioner speaking out. There's just no way that Google flaks can keep misleading political leaders anymore. Big tech is being demystified.
David Dinielli is calling for a broad antitrust case against Google on both search and adtech.
Adam Heimlich says the remedy needs to be a break-up and interoperability between adtech and search, also says we can't forget about Android and Chrome.
Carl Szabo got Amy Klobuchar to talk about break-ups. Thanks Carl!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @matthewstoller

24 Sep
"In 2016, internal analysis at Facebook found 64% of all extremist group joins were due to their own recommendation tools. Yet repeated attempts to counteract this problem were ignored or shut down." energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrat…
"We didn’t simply create something useful and fun. We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset." - Tim Kendall, Facebook's First Director of Monetization energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrat…
"The social media services that I and others have built over the past 15 years have served to tear people apart... At worst, I fear we are pushing ourselves to the brink of a civil war." - Tim Kendall, FB's First Director of Monetization energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrat…
Read 4 tweets
23 Sep
The right way for Democrats to address the conservative takeover of the courts is to actually pass bills and try to govern in a way people like. If the courts stop you then you fight them. But the whole pack the court first gets the sequencing backwards.
Democrats haven't come to grips with how the courts are stepping into a void that legislators have left. Sure the courts can create absurd constitutional limits, but more generally the courts interpret legal ambiguities in statute. Congress can just rewrite statute. It doesn't.
Democratic voters do not want to pick leaders who govern. That is why Dianne Feinstein is an 87 year-old incredibly lazy Senator from California dispatching her primary opponents with relative ease. Democratic voters want the status quo protected by their courts.
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
What an embarrassment of a story. Amy Coney Barrett has a policy track record. Delve it into it instead of participating in culture war nonsense.
Amy Coney Barrett would likely be *terrible* and would consolidate corporate power in extraordinarily ugly ways. Just in going through her Seventh Circuit Court cases I can't find a single opinion where she ruled for a consumer, worker, or victim of a corporation.
Re: Amy Comey Barrett and legal conservatives, I went over how the judges that Trump is picking are actually going to undermine the Google antitrust suit that Trump might bring forward. mattstoller.substack.com/p/will-trumps-…
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
1. I'm confused by RBG, as I don't really understand how she understood the point of law or what she meant by being committed to liberalism or equality. The best I can come up with is that she was a Clinton Democrat, a Watergate Baby style judge appointed Carter then Clinton.
2. Every observation starts with her remarkable achievements in the 1970s on behalf of gender equality, women getting the same terms as men for loans, credit cards, pension benefits, etc. Just unbelievable accomplishments. But what kind of *judge* was she? nytimes.com/2020/09/21/art…
3. This is the kind of random civil procedure case that doesn't get attention in profiles of RBG, Daimler vs Bauman. Read the Sotomayor dissent, it's a harsh critique of RBG's decision to prioritize the rights of multi-nationals over small businesses. supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf…
Read 15 tweets
21 Sep
1. There are two distinct claims that 'progressives' make about traditional Democratic power brokers that should be separated. The first is purely about the merits of specific legislative ideas, aka Medicare for All. The second is whether to wield power.
2. These are related thought distinct claims. Feinstein opposes the substantive underlying policy goals of progressives, which she and they argue is revolutionary/radical. She *also* opposes wielding power through public institutions, which is just unpopular and anti-democratic.
3. Progressives tend not to argue for basic functioning of our democratic institutions, but orient themselves around the politics of romanticism and grassroots uprising towards radical objections. The path of romanticism however has failed to deliver.
Read 8 tweets
19 Sep
The biggest obstacle we will face in addressing the court problem isn't Mitch McConnell, it'll be @neal_katyal and elite lawyers. It's the legal liberal elites who are trained to worship the Supreme Court and disdain Congress.
There is plenty of flexibility in the Constitution to get around the courts. Just strip jurisdiction when you legislate. The problem is the screams from @neal_katyal and Hogan Lovells and MSNBC when/if they do so. Plus the law schools churn out elite lawyers who worship judges.
There's a reason Supreme Court clerks get $400,000 signing bonuses when they go to #biglaw firms. It's outrageous but fixable. The issue is populists are up against a religion of the elites, which is what the fetish for judges is about.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!