Ownership

Antitrust regulation and economic concentration are suddenly everywhere in progressive thinking about economic policy. At least five different ideas are floating around that often get mushed together under the same broad heading. These are both conceptually distinct notions with different economic implications and, critically, different paths to implementation:

1. We should be stricter with existing doctrine
2. We should be more skeptical of vertical mergers
3. We should emphasize harms beyond consumers
4. We should re-emphasize broader worries about concentration
5. We should take a harder line on “predatory pricing”

The upshot of all of this is that lurking behind a broad Democratic Party consensus that the government needs to beef up its antitrust efforts, there’s plenty of room for disagreement and it’s not clear that all the relevant parties have really considered the full implications of some of the things they have said.

Jonathan Soros, the co-chair of New America told staffers that neither Google nor its executive chairman Eric Schmidt—both donors to the think tank—played a role in the recent ouster from the foundation of an antitrust scholar who had been critical of Google. “Neither Google nor Eric Schmidt attempted to interfere” with criticism of Google by the researcher, Soros wrote. “They did not threaten funding, and they did not call for any changes” to research into monopoly power.

New America CEO Anne-Marie Slaughter met with the foundation’s staff and said that there was a pattern of behavioral issues with Barry Lynn, the former-director of Open Markets, but said she could not discuss personnel issues. Slaughter promised to set up a committee to review and establish standards for interaction between donors and New America leadership. A New America spokesperson and, "New America separated from Barry Lynn because he repeatedly demonstrated that he couldn't work with his colleagues in a respectful, honest, and cooperative way."

[Commentary] Sinclair’s merger with Tribune would give them stations reaching 72 percent of the country. However, the Federal Communications Commission says that a single company, like the one that would be created after a Sinclair-Tribune merger, cannot exceed a reach of 39 percent. The FCC and Chairman Pai say it isn’t true that the rule was reinstated specifically for Sinclair. “Still,” Politico noted in early August, “the FCC action removed the most serious obstacle for Sinclair… While Sinclair doesn’t spend much on traditional lobbying, it has donated generously over the years to congressional Republicans, who have shown little inclination to throw up any roadblocks to the deal…”

Money and influence, the same old story. In a word, this deal stinks, and there’s nothing fair about it.

[Michael Winship is a senior writer with BillMoyers.com and president of Writers Guild of America, East]

[Commentary] A politically awakened Silicon Valley, buttressed by the tech industry’s growing economic power, could potentially alter politics long after President Trump has left the scene. A new survey by political scientists at Stanford University suggests a mostly straightforward answer for the politics of Silicon Valley — with one glaring twist.

The survey suggests a novel but paradoxical vision of the future of American politics: Technologists could help push lawmakers, especially Democrats, further to the left on many social and economic issues. But they may also undermine the influence of some of the Democrats’ most stalwart supporters, including labor unions. And they may strive to push Democrats away from regulation on business — including the growing calls for greater rules around the tech industry. Over all, the study showed that tech entrepreneurs are very liberal — among some of the most left-leaning Democrats you can find. They are overwhelmingly in favor of economic policies that redistribute wealth, including higher taxes on rich people and lots of social services for the poor, including universal health care. The study found one area where tech entrepreneurs strongly deviate from Democratic orthodoxy and are closer to most Republicans: They are deeply suspicious of the government’s efforts to regulate business, especially when it comes to labor. They said that it was too difficult for companies to fire people, and that the government should make it easier to do so. They also hope to see the influence of both private and public-sector unions decline.

The nation's former top consumer-protection official is headed to Hogan Lovells, a top international law firm, to specialize on an increasingly visible area of policy: antitrust and competition law. Edith Ramirez, the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission during President Barack Obama's tenure, will help lead the firm's practice on economic regulation and antitrust. She'll also take on some of its work in cybersecurity and privacy, two issues that were a core part of Ramirez's portfolio at the FTC.

The move highlights the increasing relevance of corporate power to average consumers, as companies such as Google have been penalized in Europe for alleged monopolistic behavior, and members of the two major political parties in the United States question whether major tech platforms such as Facebook and Amazon have become too dominant.

Facebook's advertising metrics have again been called into question, after Pivotal Research Group senior analyst Brian Wieser pointed out a large discrepancy between US census data and the potential reach that the social network promises advertisers. Wieser issued a note pointing out that Facebook's Adverts Manager tool promises a potential reach of 41 million 18-24 year-olds in the US, while recent census data said there only 31 million people living in the U.S. within that age range. For 25-34 year-olds, Facebook claims a potential reach of 60 million, versus the 45 million people counted in the census in 2016. Fortune's own experiments with the Adverts Manager backed up the figures Wieser quoted.

What's more, the problem does not seem to be confined to the U.S. For advertisers trying to target Facebook users in the U.K., the company promises it could potentially reach 5.8 million 20-24 year-olds, 6.4 million 25-29 year-olds, and 5.2 million 30-34 year olds. When the last census was conducted in 2011, the U.K. only had 4.3 million 20-24 year-olds, 4.3 million 25-29 year-olds, and 4.1 million 30-34 year olds.

An interview with Barry Lynn, former New America staffer who was let go, reportedly at the request of Alphabet's executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

Asked, "Why is it so important to talk about monopoly power, particularly regarding tech companies?" Lynn said, "It’s important to talk about monopoly power in general because monopolies are a threat to our democracy and to our basic liberties and to our communities. Monopolization, this concentration of wealth and power, is a threat to everything that is America — everything we established America to ensure. So Open Markets is built to fight the environment of law and regulation that currently promotes unrestrained monopoly. America today has a monopoly problem. We’re seeing basically a second wave of consolidation and monopolization because of the digital revolution. These companies are just as bad as Newscorp or Walmart or Citibank was in 2005. Google, Facebook, and Amazon: the danger they pose is on a vastly different level."

The New America Foundation is facing substantial backlash from Democrats, academics, and journalists — including those within its own ranks — a week after it was revealed that Google pressure led to the firing of a prominent Google critic at the left-leaning think tank. A letter sent Sept 2 by 25 current and former members of the New America Fellows Program criticized the organization’s initial response.

The signatories include journalists such as George Packer and Patrick Radden Keefe of the New Yorker and Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times, and scholars such as Brooklyn Law School’s Sabeel Rahman and Harvard’s Evgeny Morozov. “We are troubled by the initial lack of transparency and communication from New America’s leadership on this topic,” the letter states. “We remain deeply concerned about this sequence of events, and believe that better answers and clarity must be immediately forthcoming to assure us, and the outside world, that New America’s work is truly independent, now and going forward.”

Computer companies are worried that a new bill meant to crack down on human trafficking could instead take a big bite out of the user-generated web traffic that makes up the majority of interactions on the web, from blogs to social media posts to picture-sharing. The bill, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, is sponsored by a group of bipartisan Sens, including House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL). The bill, say its sponsors, is meant to ensure that web sites such as Backpage.com, which knowingly facilitate sex trafficking, can be held liable. It would do so by amending Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act to clarify that that section, which says internet services cannot be held liable for the actions of third parties, does not prevent enforcement against providers and users of federal and state laws against sex trafficking. Sec. 230 allows companies to moderate a network without being responsible for all the content posted on it, which, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) points out, prevents every post from being a potential lawsuit and has allowed for "literally every online platform that allows users to post information, content, and comments"—which covers everyone from Google and Facebook to Snapchat and Pinterest.

A new Verizon rewards program, Verizon Up, provides credits that wireless subscribers can use for concert tickets, movie premieres and phone upgrades. But it comes with a catch: Customers must give the carrier access to their web-browsing history, app usage and location data, which Verizon says it uses to personalize the rewards and deliver targeted advertising as its customers browse the web.

The trade-off is part of Verizon’s effort to build a digital advertising business to compete with web giants Facebook and Alphabet’s Google, which often already possess much of the same customer information. Even though Congress earlier this year dismantled tough privacy regulations on telecommunications providers, Verizon still wants customers to opt-in to its most comprehensive advertising program, called Verizon Selects. Data collected under the program is shared with Oath, the digital-media unit Verizon created when it bought AOL and Yahoo.