Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham Will Break the Internet

Published

2 years ago

July 28, 2023

admin

Anytime there’s a bipartisan consensus and a preachy New York Times op-ed, you can assume something you enjoy is about to get regulated out of existence or made worse in quality.

“Giant digital platforms have provided new avenues of proliferation for the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, human trafficking, drug trafficking and bullying and have promoted eating disorders, addictive behaviors and teen suicide,” write Sens. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) and Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) in today’sNew York Times. “Nobody elected Big Tech executives to govern anything, let alone the entire digital world,” so the senators are introducing a bill to create a new regulatory agency that will fix the problem.

What follows is a litany of untrue statements and gross exaggerations about the way Big Tech operates and the purported harm done by the cluster of websites that millions of Americans willingly use on a daily basis.

“Platforms are protected from legal liability in many of their decisions, so they operate without accountability,” Warren and Graham claim. This refers to Section 230, sometimes called the internet’s First Amendment, which was adopted in 1996 as a means of protecting platforms from being held liable for the content their users post (and without which platforms might choose not to host much speech at all). It also “ensured online platforms’ ability to regulate posts that violate their terms of service,” per First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere. Warren and Graham seem to think that somehow politicians and regulators would be better at determining which speech is permissible on different platforms.

“Google uses its search engine togive preference to its own products, like Google Hotels and Google Flights, giving it an unfair leg up on competitors,” they continue. “Amazon sucks up information from small businesses that offer products for sale on its platform, then uses that information to run its own competing businesses.”

“Appleforces entrepreneurs (and thereby consumers) to pay crushing commissions to use its App Store,” even.

But they fail to argue for how consumers are made worse off by these purportedly destructive tactics. Google Flights makes travel planning far easier than the days before search. No person is prevented from going directly to an individual airline’s website to book their flight if they prefer. Amazon has increasingly started developing Basics, its generic brand of commonly purchased household goods (just as Target has Target Brand products on offer); if someone needs a phone charger, they can get it more cheaply and quickly than ever before. As for Apple, of course other app developers must pay to place their products in the company’s digital storefront; how nice that customers have access to products made by developers other than those at Apple!

“A few Big Tech companies stifle all competition before it poses any serious threat,” the senators claim, ignoring that we’re in an era where previously indomitable companies are crumbling before our eyes: Meta’s Facebook is shedding daily active users (TikToka competitorhas long been on the rise) and Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse augmented reality pet project has struggled to get off the ground; Twitter’s U.S. ad sales are plummeting and traffic has declined each month since January (some users may be migrating to Meta-run competitor Threads, others to censorship-resistant protocols like Nostr). Hulu and YouTube are seeing drop-offs in weekly users (and some industry watchers are even noting a broader decline in the amount of time Americans spend on screens, post-pandemic).

But Big Tech companies are predatory, sucking up our data, claim Warren and Graham. Never mind the fact that we’re not forced to use them, and that it’s unclear what harm is actually done by them accessing our data. Most people, for example, aren’t privacy hawks interested in setting up two-factor authentification, using only encrypted messaging, opting out of any governmental use of their biometric information, and the like, and just express vague concerns about data and algorithms, without any specific complaint as to how their life is made worse because of Meta knowing their birthdate.

Warren and Graham go on to announce they’re introducing legislation to create an “independent, bipartisan regulator charged with licensing and policing the nation’s biggest tech companies” which will be “nimble” and “adaptable” (just like all those other government agencies). The regulator will “prevent online harm” (by waving a magic wand and ensuring no bad actors ever go online); “promote free speech and competition” (by scrapping Section 230 and cracking down on mergers instead of trusting the existing process through which companies have cycled in and out of dominance); “guard Americans’ privacy” (because government agencies do a great job at cybersecurity!); all while “protect[ing] national security” (it is unclear how banning Google Hotels will safeguard the homeland).

Contra Warren and Graham’s implications, it’s not easy to predict which new companies will emerge from the ashes of our discards. It’s not clear that the existing landscape is detrimental to consumers (again, who use these products willingly) or immune from competition. Will Threads be successful? Will Elon Musk drive Twitter into the ground? Will the future be Substack? Patreon? X? More group messaging and less interest in expansive social networks? Are people losing interest in streaming, in favor of shorter-form content like Reels? Will Amazon’s grocery delivery business succeed? Will its movie studios? Maybe neither, and it will actually be a health care industry disruptor, offering cheaper pharmaceuticals than ever before. And why is it that Microsoftthe still-massive company under investigation right now in the E.U., and the target of much 1990s antitrust ireis so infrequently mentioned today?

Warren and Graham have indeed reached a bipartisan consensus: They sell short the good done by these large companies, exaggerate the harms, and display the type of extraordinary hubris that commonly emanates from government officials.

US

Marjorie Taylor Greene says she’s received threats over Trump feud

Published

29 mins ago

November 16, 2025

admin

Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's received threats over Trump feud

Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says she’s facing threats following a barrage of personal criticism from US President Donald Trump on social media.

The former MAGA ally posted on X, saying she had been contacted by private security firms “with warnings for my safety as a hotbed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world”.

She went on: “As a woman, I take threats from men seriously.

“I now have a small understanding of the fear and pressure the women, who are victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his cabal, must feel.

“As a Republican, who overwhelmingly votes for President Trump’s bills and agenda, his aggression against me, which also fuels the venomous nature of his radical internet trolls (many of whom are paid), this is completely shocking to everyone.”

Calling her “wacky,” a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and swapping her surname from Greene to “Brown” (“Green grass turns Brown when it begins to ROT!”), Donald Trump rescinded his support for the Georgia representative and suggested he could back a primary challenger against her.

Ms Greene claims the president’s “aggressive rhetoric” is in retaliation for her support for releasing files about disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

After the US government shutdown ended, a petition to vote on the full release of the files about Epstein received enough signatures – including that of Ms Greene – to bring it to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Ms Greene claimed text messages she sent to Mr Trump over the Epstein files “sent him over the edge,” writing on social media: “Of course he’s coming after me hard to make an example to scare all the other Republicans before next week’s vote to release the Epstein files.”

She went on: “It’s astonishing really, how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out that he actually goes to this level.”

High-profile figures, including Mr Trump, have been referenced in some of the documents.

The White House has said the “selectively leaked emails” were an attempt to “create a fake narrative to smear President Trump”, who has consistently denied any involvement or knowledge about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.

Mr Trump has called the Epstein files a “hoax” created by the Democrats to “deflect” from the shutdown.

Watch Sky’s Martha Kelner clash with Taylor Greene earlier this year…

In another post on X, Ms Greene wrote: “I never thought that fighting to release the Epstein files, defending women who were victims of rape, and fighting to expose the web of rich powerful elites would have caused this, but here we are.

“And it truly speaks for itself. There needs to be a new way forward.”

Epstein took his own life in prison in 2019 while awaiting a trial for sex trafficking charges and was accused of running a “vast network” of underage girls for sex. He pleaded not guilty.

Following a conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, he was registered as a sex offender.

Mr Trump has consistently denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Business

Interpath-owner to kick off £900m sale of Claire’s administrator

Published

2 hours ago

November 16, 2025

admin

The restructuring firm drafted in to advise Sir Jim Ratcliffe on a radical cost-cutting programme at Manchester United Football Club will this week be put up for sale with a £900m price tag.

Sky News has learnt that advisers to HIG Europe, the majority shareholder in Interpath Advisory, will on Monday begin circulating information about the business to potential buyers.

City insiders said on Sunday that HIG had received a large volume of inbound enquiries from prospective suitors since it emerged that it was in the process of appointing bankers at Moelis to handle an auction.

Blackstone, Bridgepoint, Onex, PAI Partners and Permira are among the buyout firms expected to show an interest in buying Interpath, according to banking sources.

Interpath was spun out of KPMG UK in 2021 in a deal triggered by the changing regulatory climate in the audit profession.

Growing concerns over conflicts of interest between accountancy giants’ audit and consulting arms had been exacerbated by the collapse of companies such as BHS and Carillion, prompting a number of disposals by ‘big four’ firms.

Interpath has advised on a string of prominent restructuring and cost-saving mandates for clients, including acting as administrator to the UK and Ireland subsidiaries of Claire’s, the accessories retailer which collapsed during the summer.

Sources said that Interpath had doubled its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation since HIG Europe acquired the business four-and-a-half years ago.

It is also said to be on track to record a 20% increase in annual revenues in the current financial year.

A sale of Interpath is expected to be agreed during the first quarter of 2026.

HIG declined to comment.

World

Three men and two women in their 20s have died in car crash in Co Louth, Irish police say

Published

2 hours ago

November 16, 2025

admin

Three men and two women in their 20s have died in car crash in Co Louth, Irish police say

Three men and two women died in a road crash involving two cars in Co Louth on Saturday night, Irish police said.

The collision happened on the L3168 in Gibstown, Dundalk, shortly after 9pm.

Police said the five victims were all aged in their 20s and had been in the same vehicle, a Volkswagen Golf.

They were pronounced dead at the scene.

Another man, also in his 20s, was “removed” from the car and taken to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, where he was treated for “serious non-life-threatening injuries”, said Superintendent Charlie Armstrong.

The Golf was in a collision with a Toyota Land Cruiser.

A man and a woman in the second vehicle were also taken to the same hospital.

Their injuries are described as “non-life-threatening”.

‘A shocking, devastating event’

Superintendent Armstrong said an investigation into the road crash was under way, as he praised the emergency services.

He said: “The scene was very difficult, in adverse weather conditions, and the professionalism shown by all first responders and the care and respect shown to the five deceased was exemplary.

“This tragedy, with the loss of five young adults, will have a deep impact on families and local communities in Carrickmacross, Dromconrath and in Scotland.

“This is a shocking, devastating event for these families, their communities and the community here in Dundalk.”

He said family liaison officers have been appointed to each of the families and police will keep them updated.

Superintendent Armstrong urged anyone with information about the collision to contact the investigation team.

He said: “I am appealing to any person who was on the L3168 between 8.30pm and 9.15pm, last night Saturday November 15 2025, to contact the Garda investigation team.

“I am appealing to any person who might have any camera footage or images from the L3168, Gibstown area, between 8.30pm and 9.15pm last night, to give that footage or images to the investigation team at Dundalk Garda Station.”

The L3168 was closed between the N52 and the R171 as forensic experts investigated, and traffic diversions were in place.