tv Sen. Josh Hawley R-MO The Tyranny of Big Tech CSPAN July 9, 2021 6:36pm-7:09pm EDT
slept show for. >> week before would run out of time, what is baeza's legacy since he is stepping down? he is still going to be engaged she's not retiring how will history remember baeza's is amazon ceo? >> that is a good one eugene. look, a lot of it might actually be at the play out. i think we'll see some sort of antitrust case against amazon of the years ahead. i think we will state regulation is government tries to grapple as a platform for
sellers and a fact that it sells private labeled products in competition within sometimes using the data of some of its independent sellers. the stories sellers are telling now are not uniformly good. there's a lot of consternation there. back at rockefeller it's colored a little bit by the government action. we acknowledge that the legacy is not completed. i might have some asterix next to it. to give jeff credit and say it's likely with the passage of time a lot of negativity will fade will be left with thinking about someone who revolutionized business in a span of 20 years has built a company that change the world in a number of ways. not just online shopping but
reading and voice computing and computing, the way governments operate and research institutions. i really do think the only comparison if steve jobs the number of industries he has changed. who knows, he might end up doing more. with respect to space and blue origin that be a tremendous accomplishment if that company is successful. i think as an innovator in the business builder is a lot of room to criticize jeff and amazon. but in those respects thing is one of the misleaders of our time.s >> i think that is all the questions i have. thanks again for a time, appreciate it learn a lot. again. looking forward to our continuing conversation for. >> thanks eugene good to talk
to. >> weekends on cspan2 every saturday will find events and people that explore nations pass on american history tv on sunday, tv brings you the latest nonfiction books and authors, it is book television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekend on cspan2. tonight on book tv craig shirley author of the book reagan rising and other biographies of the 40th president will talk with former congresswoman gina harmon about her book arguing the united states is failing to confront different national secured problems. also in conversation the author of the book breaking the news exposing the established medias hidden deals in secret corruption. book tv, tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2.
>> the secret services found in the aftermath of the assassination of abraham lincoln. it is not till the death of john f. kennedy that the presidential protection service began to get closer attention from the american people. karol began reporting on the secret service for the "washington post" in 2012. in the prologue of her new book, zero fail she writes she started her coverage the scandal in which agents brought prostitutes to their hotel rooms while making arrangements for president obama to visit columbia. we talk about her index look in the new book subtitle the rise and fall of the secret service. >> karol on this episode of book notes plus placentas c-span.org or wherever you get your podcast. >> cspanshop.org is c-span's
online store the collection of c-span products, browse to see what is new. your purchase will support a nonprofit operation you can order the congressional director of contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to cspanshop.org. >> next, missouri republican senator josh hawley gives his influence on social media and tech companies have on free speech. he is written a book about it, the tierney of big tackett was interviewed by the "washington post". >> welcome to "washingtont. post" life. text policy report and author of technology 202 newsletter. my guestst today senator josh hawley a republican from missouri. senator, welcome to the "washington post". >> thank you. >> senator i am looking forward to talking to a bit about your proposal to break
up big tech companies in your new book. but we wanted to start to have the events of january 6. senator, you were the first senator to object to the certification of joe biden's electoral college victory. you write in your book, my sin was to raise an objection to one state currently electoral college certification process. senator, what responsibility do you feel for the cascading events that resulted on january 6? >> listen, i did what i said i was going to join january the sixth which is to voice my constituent concerns about election integrity. this is something by the way the process i used to do that democrats have using three ofia the last presidential elections. in fact every time a republican president has been elected since the year 2000 democrats have objected to 11 different states of those three presidential election of the law provides for that.
in the statute of the united states as well as they ruled the house and senate provide during the electoral certification process for objections and then debates if there is enough objection one senator one representative at least for every state a debate and then a vote, which is what i did joined by a number of my colleagues but i objected specifically the objection i filed was to the state of pennsylvania. other senators filed objected to the state of arizona. so we h had debate on both of those. my view is this, we needed to have a debate on election integrity. we are having it now. think is appropriate to have ititk then. democrats objecting previous elections have debate was appropriate was thoroughly within their rights to raise thesean issues. i promised my constituents i wouldn't so i did. that is not w going to let the actions of a lawless criminal mob, who came to the capital and tried too stop the certification process, try to stop a debate that we were in the middle of i certainly was not going to love their
actions interfere with my obligation to my constituents and doing what i said i was going to do. those who committed acts of violence, those who committed acts of crime on that day, generally six, they deserve to go to prison. i do not character justification is, it was wrong, it wass violent, i don't care from the right or the left just like the writers across different cities all the past year. just like it did the deranged individual killed the police officer just a few weekss ago at the capital in service to his violent ideology in that case the nation of islam. regardless of what your ideology is, if you commit violence if you commit the law you ought to do the time for that printers are having a debate about election integrity promised my constituents i would, i did, i all.t regret that it that is me doing my job. >> senator, members of your
owns party worn it can be damaging for democracy to use forward without objection. the case of presidential the supreme court had the pennsylvania supreme court already dismissed a a republican lawsuit challenging the results. i want to asksk you about comments he made in the local interview about a month after the attack. yohe said biden was duly elected. do you believe biden is the legitimately elected president of the united states? >> i do. you mention pennsylvania's while bring it up, as the heart of my objection is the objection i filed. in the supreme court did not hear adjudicates the merits of the claim of the constitutional claim ventilated violated its own state constitution and allowing universal mail in balloting the court specifically declined to hear it they dismissed it on a procedural ground and they violated their own doctrine in doing so.
that is not the only strange thing out of step with braun pennsylvania for that same pennsylvania supreme court, they elect their justices in pennsylvania. that court also interfered with itself. >> saturn if you're going to challenges saying they did not know the merits of the case because there was an appeals court that ruled the case lacked merit so it's difficult for a court to rule on the do not exist. >> nana nana nana no hold on you can't have it both ways. you cannot say they heard the merits and dismiss that that is wrong, that is wrong. >> it's an important point it's an important point straight listen it is an important point do not try to censor, cancel and silence may hear you raise the issue you got to listen to the truth. the truth is it pennsylvania supreme court did not hear the merits of the case. they dismiss the case on latches ground that's violation of their owner
precedents in. they'd never heard the merits of the case. the only adjudication on the merit of that constitutional claim the lower court judges in fact there was a constitutional violation in pennsylvania. my view is that people pennsylvania cannot get their own supreme court to hear the case that the supreme unsightly pennsylvania constitution says mail in balloting is not constitutional and yet it happened anyway, then there is a problem. that is eight fit subject for debate in the united states congress. and ifco democrats couldn't object to 11 different surely republicans can object o to one? >> senator were going to move andre want to ask you again about your point about president biden but you say you believe he was elected. what is your message to americans who still do not believe he is elected president? >> is a duly elected president of the united states, this is that we have the certification process.
we have that process a raid by objection other senators raise theirs we have a debate which was interrupted by the violence which is rightly being prosecuted now and condemned for condemned it at the time i do again now. if you are like me and the people of my state and you deeply disagree with the direction president biden is trying to take this country if you disagree with his policies as lawless as of the border selling out to china, and got to take our stand to the democratic process and the legislature bird with course of more elections coming up next year in november of 2022 we can go back to the country then. the thing and now it is if you disagree asre i do that we continue to stand on principle per week tried to present alternative vision and if in congress as it gets on incumbent upon people like me representing my state to oppose this agenda when my own folks oppose it.
>> senator i want to talk to you a little bit about the investigations that are going on into the capital right. do you support and 911 style commission to look into those events? >> accurate my fellow republican senators here. think a commission would be useful. but it's gotta be truly bipartisan and it's got to be done on the framework, the style of the framework commission which is not the democrats propose. notos what nancy pelosi propose she wanted to be stacked partisan which is whites currently bog down. there is no reason to further introduce partisan politics into this we ought to have a clear look at the security failings. we've had several rounds of hearings in the senate on the security failings on the day, those are pretty significant. we know for instance there is major controversy about activating the national guard we note some did not with the guard activated on the day because they thought it looked too much like president trump's activation of the
guard against the writers in d.c. earlier in the summer pretty think that was a mistake to not activate the guard earlier onta the day there is a lot of controversy on who asked for it to be activated, when it was activated, et cetera. i think we shouldd have a full accounting of all of that making sure the various law-enforcement agencies were coordinating and figuring out how to improve to haddock capitol police officer take beside the other day and say is anything going to be done proactively is it going to p be a blame game looking back? i think he had exactly right. something a commission to do to think about proactively, what are we going to do to make sure the security failings like this do not happen in the future? take a look at the physical security of the capital and so on. >> center at there's a map of fbi investigation underway as well. have you been interviewed it all by the fbi? >> i have not. >> you mention the capital police. i wanted to talk to about an interview on cnn last week.
d.c. police officer michael was beaten ferociously, suffered a heart attack and concussion pretty had to beg for his life, he spoke out about that experience, let's play thekk clip. next you know, i am happy that if got the opportunity to speak out, talk about the events of that day. it has been very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals kind of whitewash the events of that day. or downplay what happened. some of the terminology that was used like xoxox and very fine people is very different from what i experienced in what my coworkers experience. i experienced the most brutal savage hand-to-hand combat of my entire life.
let alone my policing career which expands two decades. >> what is your response to michael? >> we certainly should not downplay the violence and the rhetoric he claimed to with hugs and kisses or whatever it was brutally not damage i would use. this should be trade as violence. whether they are right at capital, portland, elsewhere or writers who w write them from the left of the right like the deranged individual who killed a police officer just a few weeks ago in the islam adherents. i certainly hopee that officer stewart will be told, that he'll be appropriately honored in the hundreds of officers have been attacked across this country over the past year by criminal writers. >> i wanted to ask you, many americans first got to m know
you from the photo of your fist pump on the sixth. who is that directed to? >> as entering the house chamber the morning of the six to go in for the beginning ofal the electoral counts, the electoral college counting process forel those were demonstrators who were out there onos the plaza. p they were on the far end of the closet there on the east side, standing behind their kids waving american flags but some were calling so i gestured toward them. and you know what? they have every right to be that they have every right to demonstrator the first amendment. they have every right to make their viewsws known. note what nobody has the right to do is to do so violently. when i walked by that particular group of folks were standing there peacefully behind police barricades, well off of the plaza. i waved to them, gave than the thumbs up, pumped my fist to them and thank them form being there for that every right to do that. >> but after what happened, do you regret that at all? >> no. because i of those protesters,
if any of the demonstrated participate in the criminal riots. i think it's a slur on the thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people who came to the capital that day to demonstrate peacefully to lump them out the criminal writers as they are basically the same it's basically the same thing. through all summer we heard over and overstay important to distinguish between the peaceful protesters and the rioters. i grew that then, i said that then. d think the same is true oft those on generally six. the tens of thousands of folks who came to d.c. the overwhelming were peaceful they came to demonstrate peacefully for that is the first amendment right out and say support and defend them in doingnd that. when to support and defend other people who i disagree with doing the same thing. >> i want to turn to a big decision we are expecting to mount related to facebook. we find out if president trunk and return to facebook.
the company's new oversight board will announce their decision. when you think of this board? >> said that right now in her country the free speech that americans enjoy basically depends on the whims of monopoly corporations. i have noise you have this board really operates, nobody does pre-this is a facebook supreme court's. i don't think any one company should have this kind of power over speech, over data, over news and information. facebook has tremendous, tremendous power. i have no idea of course with the decision of the oversight board will be pretty think it what it is is less important than the sheer amount of power that they exercise and the total lack of transparency. this is why in my view we need to break them up. facebook is a monopoly google is a monopoly. the power of these monopolies is unlike anything we've seen in this country in a century probably ever actually. i think the impending decision of this board underscores and
amplifies that. >> senator am going to get to those points he made about breaking up big tech. but first i want to ask you, what would trumps return to facebook mean for the republican party? >> my view is the former president is a very significant force in the party as it isn't that's going going to be true no matter what. i don'thi love his return to a platform is going to affect his standing of the party one way or the other. i contacted my state in the state of missouri among republicans he remains overwhelmingly popular break tilted that hasas anything to do with weathers on facebook or not. to me the issue about facebook and other social me too platforms is an issue about ordinary americans and the control of normal everyday americans by these platforms in his speech, but also in data, also their access to news, also the sharing of information. that is what i think is so vital and so key about monopoly outfits.
>> on that issue of speech, your book takes aim at section 2:30 which is a legal shield that protects internet companies on lawsuits. where do you think you can find agreement from your fellowak senators to make changes to that shield? >> here's an idea, i mentioned this in the book i think this is when it comes a section 2:30 this is an important way forward. i think the section 2:30 immunity should be withdrawn from any platform that engages in behavioral advertising. you have reported on this per behavioral advertising is and they collect our data whichct all these companies do by the way without our consent. note meaningful consents for thee track customer on the web, they collect our data, they use that are basically sell it to third parties without our consent. or they use it by constructing profiles of us that they then sell to advertisers sprayed the advertisers try to use the form of ads were behavioral
manipulation. it's not like here's a new product is based on all your previous history we are going to put in front of you images we know has a great chance of changing your mind sprayed that is behavioral advertising. it is so disruptive in the surveillance that goes into it is so dangerous i think we ought to withdraw section immunity for any company that permits, gauges or cells behavioral advertising or engages in the algorithmic amplification that's behind it. i would hope to get bipartisan support. we ought to build to agree on this. behavioral advertising encourages mass surveillance, massak tracking, mass taking of data. that will be the place i would propose to start. >> senator have you had any
discussions with d any specific lawmakers from the democratic party about that proposal? >> i have, i have. this is something i hope. this is what he said about my friends across the aisle. i hope the fact these companies have immense influence, these technologies have immense influence on the current administration up that would not deter them for going top on these companies in a meaningful way. one of the things i am concerned about a write about this the book is incredible not influence these companies have on both sides of the aisle unfortunately. we seldom try to leverage that influence in the last election with an incredible amount n of the ceos gave to the biden-harris campaign. i just hope that my democratic colleagues in congress will remain vigilant on this and will not give these companies a pass or let up the pressure. we have got to say meeting filter think we ultimately should break this companies apple should talk about that soon. section 2:30 can be a stack but i think we need to break them up.
>> on that point about breaking the companies app i want to ask you about two bills you've recently introduced. the trust busting for i the 21st century and theh best big tech act. that point working withh democrats, how we going to get these through congress? >> now listen, these are the most aggressive trust busting bills that have been introduced in years and years. these are the most trust busting bills in congress now. we'll find out were people really are. how do they respond to these bills? i think there is room to get some work done on the subcommittee on the part of that amye klobuchar chair she has her own antitrust proposals. i think you can find some good common ground between the twod of us on these two issues break propose to go further than et cetera klobuchar has very think we ought towe have a hard ban on mergers and acquisitions those have a
market of 100 or more. we should use the standard court used to evaluate antitrust cases very think we ought to make it promoting competition, protecting competition. that ought to be the standard. cohorts use the welfare standard which i think ends it being too deferential to monopolies. i think we should change the standard. we highlight those because they're twowo major areas where the bill is tougher and than others out there but weha need to have a debate about how courts have been enforcing the law. beheadings have a debate about how they cut down to size not just the tech sector. although the big tech corporations are perhaps the most pressing. across multiple industries. and we need to confront that. >> increases stand for antitrust litigation.
are you going to be able to bring other conservatives around too that idea because members of your own party say that is a nonstarter for them. >> it certainly is a bold new move, absolutely. i would say this is a tactic conservatives, something that is traditionally a principal's belief in the free market andhe belief in competition. most conservatives especially those who define themselves with economic conservatives what is important to you. competition is going to come right in the top of that list. the current standard the courts have used for decades now the consumer welfare standard only gets halfway there. the business practice in question causes higher prices to consumers but that is a fine question that is an important question. but that's not the only question would take the teches companies. our services are free.
our service is free, google put our services are free. but the problem with that is, they may be free in terms of consumer facing products, but the companies direct in other ways protect data collection but you do not have a choicece of you at your data collected if used facebook, google, or twitter per they're going to track you all over the web without yourho consent and usually without your knowledge. they are going to extract your data. that is eight monopoly per you cannot opt out of it. there is no other place you can go no other. competitor to them and say on this platform i doubt it will be protected. it's interesting facebook used to pledgect they would protect data preyed that's what they had competition, myspace over a decade ago. soon as they got rid of the competition start collecting the data. it's a get out why the consumer welfare standard is notn enough. you can have services that are
technically free but have all the characteristics of a monopoly but still burden consumers and cost them something tangible in control of their data. that is by we need a new standard that actually gets that competition. that is the standard i was propose is to protecting and promoting competition. i think that is a standard courts used to evaluate trade that would my conservative case for adopting it. >> senator, a lot of ideas i'm hearing from you today sound a lot like ideas that we have heard from biden's ftc nominee, do you plan to support her nomination? >> you know, i have not made my mind up yet, i've not chance to talk with her much yet. i will say this i am impressed with her print i'm impressed with her background i'm impressed with her work in this area for think she's thought very, very serious about monopoly problems. i think her track record demonstrates that. i think the voice she has brought to these issues is a really important one. >> senator i want to pusha
gears a little bit for you are the only senator push to vote against the belt targeting hate crimes of asian americans. he said it was too broad. what do you think should be done to target hate crimes? >> my is section four this is an anti- free-speech bill. as a former first amendment lawyer i take it really, really seriously. this bill does not create a new head crimes that are on the book. they are already barred. you cannot commit -- if you commit a crime to get somebody based on their race or their religion or their ethnic background, federal law punishes you for that and that is as it should be. my issue with this bill is what it did do in section four as it gave to the department of justice the power to track and monitor into define what it called hate incidents. those are crimes, those are not attacks not violence. those are speech in the
department of justice itself said this could include speech. i think it is a mistake to use the government the power to define offensive speech and to track it and to monitor it and collect it. i think that is a big, big problem for the civil libertarian me recoils at that. i think with the patriot act we looked at 20 years ago we gave thee government all kinds of power to frankly monitor speech to track it in some instances decriminalize it. that was supposed to be temporaryes. those powers are supposed to be limited that gotten broader and broader. i cannot in good conscious support for their government power over speech defining offensive speech at tracking and monitoring it. >> senator i have to say someone has been covering your positions on tech issues, it does seemed like in that area you do want to give the government more power over speech when you talk about having companies prove to the ftc whether they are politically neutral to get section 2:30 immunity.
it seemed likeik some of these positions are inconsistent. i want to move on. >> wait let me respond to that. that is an important point. i think we need more free-speech not less. i think the problem with the tech companies as they censor on the basis of political viewpoints. that is why i've come to the view that we ought to break themec up. the real issue here is the monopoly power per we ought to withdraw the section 2:30 immunity if they engaged in behavioralal advertising. eric this on the census of political viewpoints brian against more government regulation i just don't think that works at the end of the day. the more it regulates these companies and tries to fine tune their business models, fine-tune their speech regulation is a difference to my democratic colleagues.
they won the tech companies to censor more. the tech companies to further define offensive speech and what is not for they want the tech companies to basically become wings of the democrat party. i am opposed to that whether it's right or left. >> i just want to be clear that companies have denied they were on the basis of political viewpoint moving on to the future of the republican party, i want to ask you the election she stole it as a witness test in a lot of ways for the party. >> let me go back to a set a second ago. this is why my proposal is what we ought to just make the tech companies own service forciblesa against the part you're right that the tech companies do say they do not discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints for this have said that over and over underha oath. let's make that enforceable. right now if you are a