It's true. Apple's ties to the CCP is incredibly troubling. The New York Times reported on Apple’s dealings with China. In it, the Times found that China’s President, Xi Jinping, is increasingly exerting influence over the tech behemoth, especially as it relates to Apple’s functions and protocols oriented towards maintaining the integrity of its customers’ privacy and encryption. Congress needs to find out how many functions Apple degraded to do business in mainland China and to what extent those degradations hurt American consumers. Put simply, China does not share the same values as the United States, especially its blatant disregard for human rights. Although China does have something that the U.S. simply lacks: billions of more customers. Unfortunately, Apple has taken full advantage of both these attributes, including China’s lack of workers’ rights. But doing business there comes at a huge price—that company must hand certain liberties over to its business practices.

I explain in ⁦@TheHillOpinion⁩ that hundreds of apps on @Apple’s #AppStore openly admit to providing sensitive data to China. Worst of all, Apple promotes them to consumers all while touting how safe its store is. search.app/KD5aVC5neZSB5S… Some of these apps even use Apple’s ARKit, which enables apps to detect more than 50 unique facial expressions and project 30,000 infrared dotsto create a 3D map of a user’s face, while allowing the app to retain the data.

When a D.C. Circuit judge causally cites your and ⁦@rachelbovard⁩’s articles on a ⁦@FedSoc⁩ panel to share skepticism that gov’t jawboning is the reason #BigTech censors certain political views. 🙌 Here’s my article Judge Katsas refers to: thehill.com/opinion/civil-…

In light of the Gonzalez v. Google oral argument, I thought I'd re-up some of my views on the ways the Court could go. Put simply, the Court is evaluating what does the text of Section 230(c)(1) actually say and do? Pretty loaded question, indeed.

newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo… Let's start with the basics. Section 230 (c)(1) says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In Gonzalez v. Google, SCOTUS has a chance to clarify #Section230's meaning. Courts interpret Section 230 as shielding #BigTech from practically all civil liability when 3rd party content is at issue. I argue that nothing in the text supports that reading. newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo… One option to rectify this is that tech companies should only be protected from causes of action that target a speaker or publisher, such as defamation suits—as opposed to protecting them from enforcement actions via federal civil statutes.