1 00:00:18,359 --> 00:00:22,120 We're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dashinski, 2 00:00:22,199 --> 00:00:25,000 culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the show 3 00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:29,160 at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit FDR LST. 4 00:00:29,399 --> 00:00:32,920 Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and of course to the 5 00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:37,799 premium version of our website as well. Today we're joined by to repeat guests. 6 00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:41,280 First, Brendan Carr is the Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. You 7 00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:46,640 can follow him on Twitter at Brendan Carr FCC. We're joined by Nathan Lemur 8 00:00:46,679 --> 00:00:50,280 as well. He's the CEO of Fixed Gear Strategies. His Twitter account, 9 00:00:50,399 --> 00:00:54,920 I guess I should say X account is at Nathan Leimur DC. Welcome to 10 00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:57,520 both of you. Yeah, so good to be with you. Thanks for 11 00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,320 having me back. Thanks again. I gotta say, usually the bearer of 12 00:01:00,359 --> 00:01:03,280 bad news when you have an FCC commissioner on, that means something in the 13 00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:07,799 tech world is going south very fast, and that is the case today. 14 00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:10,920 But good hay with you. Nonetheless, I was going to say, exactly 15 00:01:11,439 --> 00:01:17,359 so, the FCC, including yourself, Commissioner Car, is set to vote 16 00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:21,439 once again on net neutrality and that's going to happen at the end of the 17 00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:23,840 month. The date for that is April twenty fifth, right, Yeah, 18 00:01:23,879 --> 00:01:30,480 that's okay, So April twenty fifth coming up quickly, and I think probably 19 00:01:30,519 --> 00:01:34,040 it would benefit all of us. And I'll start with you, commercider car 20 00:01:34,439 --> 00:01:37,359 to get a refresher on what the heck net neutrality is. I think a 21 00:01:37,359 --> 00:01:42,159 lot of people remember going through the hullabaloo learning about the super wonky policy, 22 00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:46,319 as there was this massive panic over it, and then, you know, 23 00:01:46,359 --> 00:01:49,480 if listeners are like me, just kind of went out the other side of 24 00:01:49,519 --> 00:01:53,359 my head and now I need a little bit of a refresher. So what 25 00:01:53,439 --> 00:01:57,599 on earth is net neutrality? Well, I gotta start by handing it to 26 00:01:57,719 --> 00:02:02,040 the progressive left. As a matter of branding, net neutralities probably one of 27 00:02:02,079 --> 00:02:07,000 the greatest branding mechanisms, if not Orwellian mechanisms that we have come across. 28 00:02:07,039 --> 00:02:13,039 And that's what's interesting about is that net neutrality every three or four years turns 29 00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:16,319 into something entirely different, and we need net neutrality for entirely new reasons. 30 00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:21,080 And as you pointed out, so the FCC where I work has five commissioners, 31 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:23,680 three year democrats, right now to our Republicans. I'm in the minority. 32 00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:28,840 But back in twenty seventeen, when Chairman Pie was the chairman of the 33 00:02:28,879 --> 00:02:35,520 FCC and Nathan was working for him, we repealed the Obama administration's just two 34 00:02:35,599 --> 00:02:39,639 year experiment with these Title two net neutrality rules, and if everybody remembers, 35 00:02:40,479 --> 00:02:45,960 it was probably the greatest regulatory hoax we've ever lived through. When we repealed 36 00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:52,360 Title two, CNN ran a bolded banner headline declaring the end of the Internet 37 00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:54,960 as we know it. But your question, there's really two different things going 38 00:02:54,960 --> 00:03:00,000 on here. Net neutrality is the idea that your ISP shouldn't be blocking or 39 00:03:00,039 --> 00:03:06,800 throttling your content makes a lot of sense. It's actually a very bipartisan idea. 40 00:03:07,039 --> 00:03:09,039 The challenge, though, is that when people say net neutrality on the 41 00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:14,039 left, what they really mean is Title iiO of the Communications Act, and 42 00:03:14,039 --> 00:03:19,719 that's a sweeping set of authorities that allows the government to micromanage anything that is 43 00:03:19,759 --> 00:03:23,759 subject to Title to regulation. So it started out at the telephone way back 44 00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:27,840 in the mob Bell telephone monopoly of the nineteen thirties, when there's really no 45 00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:32,280 distinguishing point between the government and the private sector. So people talk a lot 46 00:03:32,479 --> 00:03:36,759 about net neutrality, but they don't tell you the truth, which is what 47 00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:39,199 the FC's really voting on on April twenty five, is to take the Internet 48 00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:44,759 and stick it under Title iiO of the Communications Act, which comes with all 49 00:03:44,879 --> 00:03:51,280 sorts of heavy handed controls that lets bureaucrats in DC micro manage how the Internet 50 00:03:51,319 --> 00:03:58,400 itself operates. And just that little refresher alone reminded me of actually how fascinating 51 00:03:58,599 --> 00:04:02,199 this dust up was in the course of the Trump administration. But as you 52 00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:06,000 mentioned, this goes back the policy of net neutrality, specifically itself to the 53 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:10,680 Obama administration. So could you guys also give us a little refresher on the 54 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:15,639 way net neutrality, so called net neutrality has kind of seesawed back and forth 55 00:04:15,719 --> 00:04:17,759 at the FCC. And maybe, Nathan, I see you nodding, you 56 00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:23,560 might want to start with that because under the Trump administration you were working there 57 00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:26,720 at the time, right, Nathan, Yeah, it was, and it 58 00:04:27,079 --> 00:04:29,879 shows back to the idea of that neutrality comes back to two thousand and three. 59 00:04:29,959 --> 00:04:33,959 It was a phrase coin by Tim Wu, pretty well known progressive activists 60 00:04:33,959 --> 00:04:36,959 on the left who used to actually used to work at the Biden administration, 61 00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:44,680 and it proliferated mainly because former President Obama used it as a campaign slogan. 62 00:04:44,759 --> 00:04:47,240 It was actually the first way to galvanize what we now know is net roots 63 00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:53,360 like online progressive activists, to really call us around this concept. And in 64 00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:56,519 fact, many of his organizations still exists today and are running a whole bunch 65 00:04:56,519 --> 00:05:00,360 of fundraising efforts on this latest effort at the fc SEE because it's been a 66 00:05:00,399 --> 00:05:03,759 really great cash cow for them to bring in donor support for the past you 67 00:05:03,759 --> 00:05:08,480 know, fifteen twenty years. And you know, I think, you know, 68 00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:11,160 there are conversations about, you know, the principles of net neutrality. 69 00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:15,079 Again, the idea of companies not blocking and throttling is a good concept. 70 00:05:15,079 --> 00:05:17,920 It's something that a lot of people agree with. In fact, there are 71 00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:21,399 no real hype, there's no real fear, there's no examples is actually ever 72 00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:26,759 happening. There are a lot of hypothetical, tangible predictions, but they never 73 00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:32,639 came true. And so when when President Biden's and President Obama's SEC chairman Tom 74 00:05:32,680 --> 00:05:38,920 Wheeler established the Open Internet Order, which basically established these rules of net neutrality 75 00:05:38,959 --> 00:05:43,399 under title to you know, over two years, we saw within a couple 76 00:05:43,439 --> 00:05:47,560 of years, a lack of investment, actually a decrease in investment to build 77 00:05:47,560 --> 00:05:53,680 out this broadman access and decrease of innovation that could allow more people to have 78 00:05:53,759 --> 00:05:58,000 Internet access. And then that's what we saw in twenty twenty seventeen when Mile 79 00:05:58,079 --> 00:06:02,439 Voss, a GPI and Brendan Carr voted the right way to kind of restore 80 00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:08,360 Internet freedom and kind of repeal those rules, we saw actually a jumping investment. 81 00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:11,399 We've seen actually, you know, a further further growth of proliferation of 82 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:15,800 new technology, whether it's five G or whether it's LEO satellites like Starlink or 83 00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:19,560 Project Hyper you know in the US kind of proliferate. You know, this 84 00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:24,319 going back to this kind of a Title two regime will actually make it harder 85 00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:28,920 for some of those entities to actually deliver their next generation activity. So it's 86 00:06:28,959 --> 00:06:31,680 in this like back and forth seesaw that's happened over the past twenty five years. 87 00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,920 But all the while, the progressive activists who pushed it twenty years ago 88 00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:39,000 are still pushing it today. Well, and you know, COMMI strock Card. 89 00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:41,560 This is what it was. That's so interesting because what you have there 90 00:06:41,759 --> 00:06:47,680 are you have a failed experiment by objective metrics and a successful experiment by objective 91 00:06:47,759 --> 00:06:53,920 metrics, side by side, and from your vantage point on the FCC right 92 00:06:53,959 --> 00:06:58,959 now, why is there still this interest after, you know, seeing the 93 00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:03,519 hoax really go up in flames and seeing what the reality looks like after trying 94 00:07:03,639 --> 00:07:09,040 both. Why are people still clinging to FCC? Why will your to net 95 00:07:09,040 --> 00:07:14,040 neutrality? Why will your fellow commissioners on the FCC probably vote to bring it 96 00:07:14,079 --> 00:07:19,160 back? Yeah, this has become a matter of civic religion among some quarters 97 00:07:19,279 --> 00:07:24,600 on the progressive left. And you're right, if facts in reason we're driving 98 00:07:24,600 --> 00:07:28,199 this debate, then the SEC would not be voting this month to bring back 99 00:07:28,439 --> 00:07:31,360 these heavy handed Title two rules. I mean again, there's no clearer example 100 00:07:31,839 --> 00:07:36,399 of predictions not coming true. And this really was the Y two K moment 101 00:07:36,519 --> 00:07:41,759 for an entire generation. I mean center Bernie Sanders tweeted at the time of 102 00:07:41,759 --> 00:07:45,920 our repeal in twenty seventeen, this is the end of the Internet as we 103 00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,160 know it. Senator Markey similarly tweeted, if we don't save net neutrality, 104 00:07:49,720 --> 00:07:55,680 a JEEPI will turn the Internet into a digital oligarchy. The Internet will never 105 00:07:55,759 --> 00:07:59,000 be the same, not like we can fix this with a vote down the 106 00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:01,680 road, it will never be the same. And what's so interesting is we 107 00:08:01,759 --> 00:08:07,720 had the greatest experiment when it comes to global tech policy in COVID nineteen. 108 00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:13,959 So as COVID nineteen hit virtually overnight, we took a year's worth of internet 109 00:08:13,959 --> 00:08:18,279 traffic growth and stacked it onto the internet overnight, as people started working from 110 00:08:18,279 --> 00:08:22,399 home, working remotely, schooling their kids. What we saw was really telling. 111 00:08:22,759 --> 00:08:26,120 In Europe, which has an approach to Internet regulation that's much more similar 112 00:08:26,279 --> 00:08:31,759 to Title two, much more heavy handed regulation, Europe's networks struggled. In 113 00:08:31,799 --> 00:08:37,440 fact, their top regulator pulled up Netflix and asked them to degrade the quality 114 00:08:37,720 --> 00:08:43,440 of Netflix's signal because they were worried that all those bits being transmitted downstream, 115 00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:46,399 we're going to break the continent's network. We didn't have that problem here because 116 00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:52,000 without those heavy handed Title to rules, ISPs in America were investing heavily in 117 00:08:52,039 --> 00:08:56,720 their networks, more than two times as much as they were investing in Europe, 118 00:08:56,799 --> 00:09:03,919 and so our internet speeds maintained their performance with that unprecedented COVID nineteen surge. 119 00:09:03,919 --> 00:09:07,399 So really, among other things, COVID nineteen should have ended the debate 120 00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:11,159 altogether about Title iiO and net neutrality. Of course it didn't. And again 121 00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:16,200 to the point that Nathan was making, look at your own experience. You 122 00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:20,320 know, since twenty seventeen, mobile internet speeds are up six fold, millions 123 00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:26,039 of Americans have been brought across the digital divide. You now have more competition 124 00:09:26,279 --> 00:09:30,679 for your broadband dollars than you ever had before, including new players. Right, 125 00:09:30,720 --> 00:09:33,960 so Starling didn't even exist, wasn't even up in the air in twenty 126 00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:37,840 fifteen and twenty seventeen, and yet it is now. So whatever basis that 127 00:09:37,879 --> 00:09:43,120 there was for Title two and heavy handed regulation of scarcity back in the day, 128 00:09:43,279 --> 00:09:48,080 it certainly does not apply to today's modern Internet. And in fact, 129 00:09:48,600 --> 00:09:52,679 if you step back and say, what I care about is the free flow 130 00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:56,399 of information on the Internet, Well, that line of thinking does not take 131 00:09:56,480 --> 00:10:00,559 you to the mom and pop isp It takes you to a very different point 132 00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:03,799 in the Internet ecosystem. People's own experiences of the last couple of years shows 133 00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:09,399 them that we're the discrimination. Where the lack of neutral treatment is taking place 134 00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:13,720 in the Internet is at the edge. It's Google, it's Apple, it's 135 00:10:13,759 --> 00:10:18,159 Facebook, And what's so troubling but also deeply ironic. Is As Nathan pointed 136 00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:24,519 out, this entire idea germinated in the early two thousands and was pushed by 137 00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:30,039 big tech companies like Google precisely because it created a regulatory mode around their business 138 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,840 model and kept competitors out. So at a point in time when so many 139 00:10:33,879 --> 00:10:37,759 people are finally waking up to the discrimination taking place by big tech, the 140 00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:41,879 censorship, the conduct that Apple is taking to beat back competitors, and in 141 00:10:41,919 --> 00:10:46,399 fact, some components of the Biden administration are bringing legal actions right now to 142 00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:50,879 bring big tech accountable. The FCC is entirely out of step, and we're 143 00:10:50,879 --> 00:10:56,120 going to go down the path of giving new protections to big tech despite what 144 00:10:56,200 --> 00:10:58,240 our own eyes and experiences have gone through over the last couple of years. 145 00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:03,919 So it's a backwards looking approach. It's one fascinating Yeah, here, Nathan, 146 00:11:03,919 --> 00:11:05,799 I was going to toss to you, Actually, let me just set 147 00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:11,279 it up. That's a fascinating dynamic where you have the protect well the big 148 00:11:11,320 --> 00:11:16,559 tech companies that for example, Lena Khan in one part of the Biden administration 149 00:11:16,320 --> 00:11:20,840 is targeting in some really serious ways, and on the other hand, you 150 00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:26,120 have this amazing dynamic where the net roots. To borrow that phrase, progressives 151 00:11:26,799 --> 00:11:33,480 are now on the side of protecting these tech companies that they so bitterly at 152 00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:39,759 least claim to be in opposition to. There's a great article actually posted on 153 00:11:39,799 --> 00:11:43,480 Truth on the Market actually just a couple of days ago, that looks at 154 00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:48,320 the compliance costs and the process, the burdens and process for these providers. 155 00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:50,879 Now we usually think of the like large internet providers, the ones that do 156 00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:54,679 you know, commercials on the Super Bowl, but you know, there's actually 157 00:11:54,679 --> 00:12:01,440 a recent report that shows over twenty twenty one BROADMAI entities. These are small 158 00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:05,840 providers that you've never heard of. These are emerging technologies that are that are 159 00:12:05,879 --> 00:12:09,240 servicing different communities and they all have to abide by the same rules. So 160 00:12:09,279 --> 00:12:13,200 you have these small providers that are more regional, more local, who are 161 00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:16,799 now going have to go by the same process this mother may I approach to 162 00:12:16,840 --> 00:12:20,559 be even built out broadband. But also this could apply even the Starlink for 163 00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:26,000 example, or other LEO satellites even before every time they launch. Every time 164 00:12:26,039 --> 00:12:28,279 you try to put out new satellites, you're going to have to get you 165 00:12:28,279 --> 00:12:31,799 know, permission now by the FCC to even like service your customers, to 166 00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,000 take this to the next level, and it's just kind of showing this, 167 00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:39,399 how this, how this is having this downstream effect on all the providers in 168 00:12:39,799 --> 00:12:45,039 concern about the hypothetical fears that maybe a few might provide that that honestly, 169 00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:48,320 you know, never came true. But also you're also seeing a changing narrative. 170 00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:52,080 So you point out that this has been going on for so many years, 171 00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:54,639 but the reasoning has changed. It's no longer about competition because we have 172 00:12:54,840 --> 00:12:58,440 over two thousand providers. It's not about free speech because if we talk about 173 00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:03,559 free speech, that's actually happening at the app level, at the platform level, 174 00:13:03,639 --> 00:13:07,559 the Googles and the Apples of the world. Now the reasoning is we 175 00:13:07,600 --> 00:13:13,200 need net neutrality because for national security. Now we've talked about national security before. 176 00:13:13,600 --> 00:13:16,240 A Commissioner Car knows quite a bit about national security what we're doing. 177 00:13:16,480 --> 00:13:20,919 Commissioner Car has been leading away on efforts to ban Huawei and ZT and other 178 00:13:22,159 --> 00:13:26,279 you know, really really nefarious entities in the Internet stack. But a lot 179 00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:30,480 of people who were going missing in that conversation entirely are now saying we need 180 00:13:30,559 --> 00:13:37,480 net neutrality to go after our national security vulnerabilities. Debt it keeps you tossing 181 00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:41,320 and turning at night. You just can't get away from it. But the 182 00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:45,679 truth is the system is actually designed to trap you in debt. Insanely high 183 00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:48,799 interest credit cards and loans make it nearly impossible to pay off your debt. 184 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:52,279 But there's a new way out of the debt trap. Pivotal Debt Solutions. 185 00:13:52,519 --> 00:13:58,519 Pivotal Debt Solutions isn't like the old school debt relief companies that string your debt 186 00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:03,559 out for years. Have new aggressive strategies that can end your debt faster and 187 00:14:03,759 --> 00:14:09,240 easier than you thought possible. Pivotal Debt Solutions can cut or even eliminate interest, 188 00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:13,240 find programs to write off your balances so you owe less, stop those 189 00:14:13,279 --> 00:14:18,559 threatening phone calls without bankruptcy and without alone. The bottom line is they find 190 00:14:18,639 --> 00:14:22,519 every solution possible to end your debt permanently. Before you do anything, contact 191 00:14:22,559 --> 00:14:26,879 Pivotal Debt Solutions first. Talk to them for free. Find out how fast 192 00:14:26,919 --> 00:14:31,639 they can help you get out of debt. Visit zapmdebt dot com. That's 193 00:14:31,879 --> 00:14:39,799 zapmdebt dot com. Zapmdebt dot com. I have a quote actually from a 194 00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:46,759 Reuter's article in which Commissioner Car is quoted as well, I was really excited 195 00:14:46,799 --> 00:14:52,919 to ask about this actually because it's just incredible. They now say, let 196 00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:56,720 me pull it up here. Yes, the reclassification we could would give the 197 00:14:56,840 --> 00:15:01,360 FCC important new national security tools agency set it's initial proposal that rules could give 198 00:15:01,399 --> 00:15:07,159 it quote more robust authority to require more entities to remove and replace equipment and 199 00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:13,639 services from Chinese companies like Huawei and Zte. Commissioner Car, can you break 200 00:15:13,679 --> 00:15:16,480 that down? And maybe also a little bit of the tech side too, 201 00:15:16,559 --> 00:15:20,080 like, what on earth are they talking about there? Yeah? You know, 202 00:15:20,120 --> 00:15:26,879 look, there is no gap in national security that Title iiO is necessary 203 00:15:28,519 --> 00:15:31,559 to fill. You know, we have had Title I regulation of the Internet 204 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:35,759 since twenty seventeen. And to somehow suggest to people that for the past six 205 00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:39,759 or seven years we've been staring at some latent, but you know, very 206 00:15:39,799 --> 00:15:43,879 serious national security threat in our Internet networks but have been unable as a federal 207 00:15:43,879 --> 00:15:48,279 government to do something about it is just not believable. There are plenty of 208 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:54,240 actions that the FCC Contank, but more importantly, can take in conjunction with 209 00:15:54,399 --> 00:15:58,639 the federal agencies that actually are empowered in this space. So DHS has a 210 00:15:58,639 --> 00:16:02,399 lot of authority here, has a lot of authority here. The Federal Trade 211 00:16:02,399 --> 00:16:04,200 Commission has a lot of authority here. So the FCC, if you read 212 00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:07,360 the order, it actually backs away a little bit and it says, well, 213 00:16:07,639 --> 00:16:11,720 it'd be nice if we had additional authorities in an additional seat at the 214 00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:15,639 table. So all the headline suggests that this is necessary for national security, 215 00:16:15,799 --> 00:16:19,279 the item itself is actually very weak on that point, and to some I 216 00:16:19,480 --> 00:16:22,879 got to give it credit because it is not a credible point to suggest that 217 00:16:23,159 --> 00:16:27,279 Title iiO is necessary for national security. But it's part of what we've been 218 00:16:27,320 --> 00:16:33,720 talking about, which is this etcha sketch basis of regulation, which is every 219 00:16:33,759 --> 00:16:36,639 time we go through this, we're told we need this for this reason, 220 00:16:36,879 --> 00:16:38,960 and then when this doesn't end up happening, they say, okay, forget 221 00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:44,080 about that. But it's this entirely different reason, and so the goalposts keep 222 00:16:44,279 --> 00:16:48,679 moving, but the goal is exactly the same, which is just to continue 223 00:16:48,679 --> 00:16:52,720 to get more and more control over the Internet. It wasn't that long ago, 224 00:16:52,759 --> 00:16:56,200 a couple months ago, that the FCC adopted this new order called Digital 225 00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:00,799 Equity for the Internet, which gives the agents see basically the same type of 226 00:17:00,840 --> 00:17:06,759 title to authorities over the Internet in the absence of Title two. And so 227 00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:11,319 what the order tries to suggest the draft decision at the FCC is that there 228 00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:15,400 is some massive absence of regulation when it comes to the Internet. And that's 229 00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:17,880 not the case at all, whether it's Digital Equity, Federal Trade Commission, 230 00:17:18,240 --> 00:17:21,880 or all these other agencies. There's nothing there. And to Nathan's point, 231 00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:25,480 the item also says that you know this will help the SEC promote free speech. 232 00:17:25,519 --> 00:17:26,839 I mean, you got to be kidding me. Right now, the 233 00:17:26,839 --> 00:17:33,519 Bidy administration is in the Supreme Court in this case Murphy versus Missouri, defending 234 00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:40,359 its right to jawbone and pressure social media companies into censoring speech. So you're 235 00:17:40,359 --> 00:17:44,359 telling me that the FCC is going to get new powers, new authority over 236 00:17:44,400 --> 00:17:48,799 ISP and they're going to use it in the exact opposite way to actually encourage 237 00:17:48,920 --> 00:17:52,359 free speech. I don't think it's going to happen. And look, in 238 00:17:52,400 --> 00:17:56,279 addition to the legal elements of this, there's a cultural issue in this country 239 00:17:56,359 --> 00:17:59,519 right now when it comes to censorship and free speech. You know, we 240 00:17:59,599 --> 00:18:03,880 have moved moved away from this very liberal embrace of diversity opinions. And I 241 00:18:03,880 --> 00:18:11,480 think it's accelerated obviously during COVID nineteen. Because free speech is anethetical to government 242 00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:14,200 control. It's the check on government control. So whenever you go through a 243 00:18:14,200 --> 00:18:18,519 period of time in which there is a great expansion of government authority and a 244 00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:23,640 retraction of individual liberty, you're going to see free speech having to go by 245 00:18:25,039 --> 00:18:27,000 the wayside. And it's troubling to me. And in fact, you know 246 00:18:27,480 --> 00:18:32,000 one story that puts some bookends on this. Right around the twenty twelve election, 247 00:18:32,559 --> 00:18:37,960 President Obama went to Facebook headquarters in Silicon Valley and he gave a speech 248 00:18:37,079 --> 00:18:41,440 and he talked about the free flow of information on the Internet being key to 249 00:18:41,480 --> 00:18:45,759 what he said was a healthy democracy twenty twelve, and then flash forward about 250 00:18:45,799 --> 00:18:49,880 ten years short time as a matter of politics, to the twenty twenty two 251 00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:55,079 midterms, and a couple miles down the road to Stanford, President Obama went 252 00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:57,839 back there and he talked about this, you know, reflow of information on 253 00:18:57,880 --> 00:19:03,960 the internet, unfettered flow of information, being a threat to democracy. So 254 00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:07,880 we bookended from twenty twelve healthy to democracy to free speech on the Internet being 255 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:11,599 a threat to democracy. What happened in between, I think, well, 256 00:19:11,640 --> 00:19:15,319 one it was the election President Trump, but also I think it was just 257 00:19:15,359 --> 00:19:21,559 the rise of social media and bending towards greater and greater censorship. And you 258 00:19:21,559 --> 00:19:23,720 know, as a country, it's troubling. I think a lot of this 259 00:19:23,799 --> 00:19:29,359 actually, in my view, is downstream from extreme versions of DEI, because 260 00:19:29,359 --> 00:19:33,359 once you divide the world into the oppressed and the oppressor, you don't need 261 00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:36,200 free speech. You know, right and wrong is given to you. But 262 00:19:36,400 --> 00:19:41,319 we have to make a move in this country back towards this embrace of diversity 263 00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:44,200 of opinions. But that's why, you know, until we do that, 264 00:19:44,680 --> 00:19:48,680 you know, absolutely do not trust the FCC's claim they're going to use this 265 00:19:48,799 --> 00:19:53,400 newfound power over the Internet to somehow protect free speech. It's incredibly well said. 266 00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:56,079 And also you can look at the tech leaders themselves, Jack dor C, 267 00:19:56,319 --> 00:20:02,160 Mark Zuckerberg, and the sort of former pirates of the tech world who 268 00:20:02,279 --> 00:20:06,799 have completely done one eighties on that question, alongside people like President Obama. 269 00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:11,480 Nathan I saw you nodding Darius a vigorously during Commissioner Cars and the answer there, 270 00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:12,759 what do you want to add, Well, I just wanted to flya 271 00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:18,319 like we see concerns about censorship across the board, and whether it's you know, 272 00:20:18,359 --> 00:20:23,319 the ability of Americans to donate to the candidates that they like, whether 273 00:20:23,359 --> 00:20:27,000 it's you know, the freedom of of candidates to send emails without being censored 274 00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:32,799 by large tech platforms. We see you know, conversations throughout the scope. 275 00:20:32,839 --> 00:20:36,680 If you have a YouTube channel in twenty twenty one, you mentioned that you 276 00:20:36,799 --> 00:20:40,720 believe the lab leak has some you know, potential truth to it instead of 277 00:20:40,759 --> 00:20:47,279 the narrative that was pushed by Anthony Fauci. What happened to all those individuals. 278 00:20:47,279 --> 00:20:52,240 Those individuals were being honestly persecuted and discriminated against by the same journalists and 279 00:20:52,279 --> 00:20:56,799 progressive activists who want that neutrality. Now, those same people thought that their 280 00:20:56,839 --> 00:21:02,640 Internet should be taken away if you perpetuated any sort of wrong speak. The 281 00:21:02,759 --> 00:21:06,920 same people who want net neutrality wanted you to not have access. How many 282 00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:08,759 people were talking about, oh, we should bottle their access if you were 283 00:21:08,759 --> 00:21:12,359 on parlor, we don't want you on parlor anymore. Like this whole concept 284 00:21:12,440 --> 00:21:18,359 of you know, the gatekeepers being able to say who should have online access 285 00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:21,160 and who should not, you know, it is really worrisome and having the 286 00:21:21,240 --> 00:21:26,079 FCC have more power and your outlet the federalistet of phenomenal op edge just a 287 00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:30,839 couple of days ago that gets at this like, this is like enabling new 288 00:21:30,920 --> 00:21:34,599 levels of censorship in government interference that you know, we should be really concerned 289 00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:38,000 about because again, the same people fuishing for net neutrality are the same people 290 00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:42,240 who didn't want us to think freely for ourselves on a whole host of issues 291 00:21:42,279 --> 00:21:47,880 because it went contrary to their own ideas. Yeah, and that really helpfully 292 00:21:47,880 --> 00:21:51,720 answers the question of why you can have objective metrics, you know, rebutting 293 00:21:51,839 --> 00:21:56,920 the arguments in favor of net neutrality plain as day. And it gets to 294 00:21:56,160 --> 00:22:00,519 that makes their motivations a whole lot more obvious. And that's the next question 295 00:22:00,559 --> 00:22:02,400 I wanted to toss to both of you. I don't know who wants to 296 00:22:02,400 --> 00:22:03,920 take it first, but basically, can you give us kind of a breakdown 297 00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:07,680 of where the special interests are on this question? I imagine that there's a 298 00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:14,920 lot of outside pressure on commissioners and on the Biden administration even to just take 299 00:22:15,279 --> 00:22:17,680 the step, although it seems like they probably wanted to do it on their 300 00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:21,599 own anyway. Where are special interests kind of aligned on the question of net 301 00:22:21,599 --> 00:22:26,079 neutrality. Yeah, well, look for in terms of pro net neutrality, 302 00:22:26,119 --> 00:22:30,440 it's very squarely in the Google, camp Netflix. It's the edge providers as 303 00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:34,319 we talk about, at the application layer again, because they view it as 304 00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:37,599 some sort of protection for them, and it really is, you know, 305 00:22:37,640 --> 00:22:42,720 a distraction from the efforts that the government should be taking to hold those very 306 00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:45,559 same entities accountable. And it's very ironic that you've had you know, Google 307 00:22:45,559 --> 00:22:51,240 and other deep pocketed interests pushing for years for net neutrality while at the same 308 00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:56,480 time acting in a very non neutral manner when it comes to their own conduct. 309 00:22:56,400 --> 00:23:00,640 Yeah. I'd also point out some of those same entities are now of 310 00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:03,759 building out their own broadband services and so now they're realizing, oh, I 311 00:23:03,759 --> 00:23:06,440 hear it caught up in this, So how does this you know, affect 312 00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:08,759 them? And so that's also a part of the conversation that I think is 313 00:23:08,759 --> 00:23:12,599 a little nuanced, if you will. It's almost like, you know, 314 00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:17,079 they're they're they're now on the receiving end of the regulation and now they realize, 315 00:23:17,119 --> 00:23:19,640 oh, this is actually super problematic, and honestly, ironically, their 316 00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:23,920 arguments sound very similar to the same as the Internet providers five years ago or 317 00:23:23,960 --> 00:23:29,880 ten years ago. And again you can't you can't disassociate the fact that there 318 00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:33,519 was this was a promise by the Biden administration to a number of progressive activists 319 00:23:34,240 --> 00:23:37,759 in people who who they needed to show up on on on election day to 320 00:23:37,799 --> 00:23:41,400 say that we're going to fulfill this this effort. And so you know that 321 00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:45,720 that that the politics is definitely still part of that. I know that's not 322 00:23:45,759 --> 00:23:48,519 what the Commission's job is to be determining or to comment on, but like 323 00:23:48,559 --> 00:23:52,000 as someone on the outside, I can tell you, like that's a real 324 00:23:52,079 --> 00:23:55,319 interest. And what's fascinating is you're not seeing John Oliver do videos. You're 325 00:23:55,319 --> 00:23:57,759 not seeing the same sort of enthusiasm for this. You know, again, 326 00:23:57,799 --> 00:24:02,400 like we receive death threats five years ago. You know, I even me 327 00:24:02,440 --> 00:24:04,720 as a low level junior staffer. I wasn't a junior staffer. I'm will 328 00:24:04,839 --> 00:24:10,440 exaggerated, but like as a status yeah, exactly. Think think humility. 329 00:24:10,559 --> 00:24:15,680 I had for Federal Protective Services escort me around for several days because of the 330 00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:18,519 threat that we were receiving. Former chairman and GEP Pie had like attacks on 331 00:24:18,599 --> 00:24:22,720 him and his family and we had a bomb threat at the at the FCC. 332 00:24:23,160 --> 00:24:26,519 I mean, this was like insane, the type of overreaction we had 333 00:24:26,720 --> 00:24:30,200 five years ago. Now, honestly, it's a it's an eight it's a 334 00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:33,720 page eight story. It is on the back page of the conversation in DC, 335 00:24:33,839 --> 00:24:38,160 because rightfully, most Americans realized there's so much more going on. But 336 00:24:38,200 --> 00:24:42,720 again, you know the sometimes you still got to pay those favors, political 337 00:24:42,720 --> 00:24:48,960 favors from five six years ago. And my understanding is that some states have 338 00:24:48,359 --> 00:24:52,319 actually gone with their own versions of net neutrality Commissioner and Carl'll start with you 339 00:24:52,359 --> 00:24:56,799 on this one. What's happening at this sort of federal versus the state level. 340 00:24:56,799 --> 00:25:00,480 The states are stepping into what they see as a void, and so 341 00:25:00,519 --> 00:25:03,599 there's kind of a Patrick right now. Yeah, there were a handful of 342 00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:07,240 states after the twenty seventeen repeal, although a number of years after the twenty 343 00:25:07,279 --> 00:25:11,960 seventeen repeal that stepped in with their own versions of net neutrality laws, including 344 00:25:11,319 --> 00:25:15,880 California. And what's interesting about that is two things. One, the draft 345 00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:18,720 order that we're going to vote on at the FCC leans in heavily and says 346 00:25:18,720 --> 00:25:25,400 we need a uniform national standard to address net neutrality, and yet of course 347 00:25:25,599 --> 00:25:30,160 they exclude from preemption the California law, which you know, in my view 348 00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:32,759 has a lot to do with politics at the end of the day. But 349 00:25:32,839 --> 00:25:36,759 what's also interesting about that California law is when they were first bringing online around 350 00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:41,319 twenty twenty one, there was a very real concern that their version of net 351 00:25:41,319 --> 00:25:48,319 neutrality was going to pinch veterans that were getting sort of free telehealth services because 352 00:25:48,319 --> 00:25:53,319 their telehealth service from their provider was excluded from their data caps, and that's 353 00:25:53,319 --> 00:25:59,839 something that strict net neutrality doesn't allow, and so that was a problem that 354 00:25:59,839 --> 00:26:03,920 they tried to sort of sweep under the rug. But the other thing that's 355 00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:07,799 interesting about these state laws is some people say, well, we need this 356 00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:10,799 national approach, and then you say, well, why didn't the Internet end 357 00:26:10,839 --> 00:26:12,759 in twenty seventeen, Oh, because these states stepped in. But you can't 358 00:26:12,759 --> 00:26:15,640 have it both ways. If you know one or two states having inny trally 359 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:19,720 laws is the thin line between us and the end of the Internet, then 360 00:26:19,839 --> 00:26:26,200 we should stay where we are without going forward with these heavy handed federal regimes. 361 00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:29,559 So the state laws are interesting, and again the ones that are most 362 00:26:29,599 --> 00:26:36,079 politically salient like California are somehow going to be excluded from these national standards. 363 00:26:37,000 --> 00:26:41,279 Anything to add on that, Nathan, other than like you know, the 364 00:26:42,640 --> 00:26:48,960 fact that like you know, the Telemellet telehealth example is a cirta really salient 365 00:26:49,039 --> 00:26:53,599 example where like you had providers stepping in to provide free services or veterans, 366 00:26:55,000 --> 00:26:59,920 and the fact is that the regulatory regime could actually hinder their ability to prove 367 00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:06,759 that innovative service because it didn't follow the strict uh uh adhering you know, 368 00:27:07,200 --> 00:27:11,519 strict theology of net neutrality and so the doctrine if you will, and so 369 00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:14,839 you know, I think that's something that we should be thinking about long term, 370 00:27:14,880 --> 00:27:17,359 is whether at the state level or even looking what happened in Europe as 371 00:27:17,359 --> 00:27:21,279 as Commissioner A car mentioned, like when they had to throttle Netflix because they 372 00:27:21,279 --> 00:27:26,039 can't handle you know, COVID pandemic demand. You know this is these are 373 00:27:26,079 --> 00:27:29,960 the type of ramifications that we're going to have across the Internet ecosystem. You're 374 00:27:29,960 --> 00:27:34,000 going to have slower potential services for you know, next generation technologies like satellites. 375 00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:37,519 You're going to have the inability of next generation and Wi Fi to do 376 00:27:37,559 --> 00:27:41,279 what it needs to do to truly service our customers. It could actually how 377 00:27:41,319 --> 00:27:44,920 does that affect AI? What's it look like for? You know? This 378 00:27:45,079 --> 00:27:52,960 these these the network management to deal with the nuances of artificial intelligence? You 379 00:27:52,000 --> 00:27:56,279 know, how is that gonna deal with quantum quantum computing, et cetera. 380 00:27:56,359 --> 00:27:59,720 And I just don't think these questions have been fully answered, and it just 381 00:27:59,759 --> 00:28:03,480 show that whether the state level or international, we're just going to have further 382 00:28:03,559 --> 00:28:07,359 ramifications of this heavy handed approach. Yeah, basically to this, OK, 383 00:28:07,359 --> 00:28:11,200 go ahead, ye sorry, This point goes to sort of the unintended consequences 384 00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:14,680 are perhaps intended. You know, as we talked about, there's this service 385 00:28:14,720 --> 00:28:18,279 called zero rating, which means if you want to use a particular application, 386 00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:22,440 your carrier will let you do so without having account against your data cap. 387 00:28:22,559 --> 00:28:27,640 Zero rating. The application in the SEC order puts those zero rating so free 388 00:28:27,720 --> 00:28:33,880 data for customers precisely in the crosshairs. Same with data caps. So let's 389 00:28:33,880 --> 00:28:37,000 say you have a data capped mobile wireless plan that you pay thirty bucks for 390 00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:41,160 forty bucks for a month, and you prefer that to a sixty or seventy 391 00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:45,799 dollars unlimited data plan. Well, the FC order says that data caps themselves 392 00:28:47,119 --> 00:28:48,799 may be a violation of net neutrality, and we're going to look at it 393 00:28:48,839 --> 00:28:52,720 on a case by case basis. So it could effectively compel everyone to go 394 00:28:52,759 --> 00:28:56,200 to an all you can eat buffet and expensive all you can eat buffet every 395 00:28:56,200 --> 00:29:00,960 single day. And it's just the government, you know, stepping in micromanaging 396 00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:03,799 even those types of data plans. And I think fundamentally, again, when 397 00:29:03,839 --> 00:29:07,720 you step back, this isn't an isolated pinprick. It's part of this broader 398 00:29:07,759 --> 00:29:12,319 effort towards government control. And it's frankly, it's a rejection on the left 399 00:29:12,400 --> 00:29:18,000 from what used to be a bipartisan consensus that if the market is functioning, 400 00:29:18,400 --> 00:29:23,680 let's rely on those market forces to continue to deliver a good for consumers. 401 00:29:23,759 --> 00:29:29,720 Instead, you see some on the far left there are the view that effectively, 402 00:29:29,759 --> 00:29:32,759 if the government doesn't have a seat on the board of directors at a 403 00:29:32,799 --> 00:29:36,480 company and isn't able to stop every single thing that goes wrong ahead of time, 404 00:29:37,440 --> 00:29:41,079 then we simply aren't protected. And you look at this throughout the FC's 405 00:29:41,200 --> 00:29:45,039 order, there's no evidence of a concrete, actual harm that requires a government 406 00:29:45,039 --> 00:29:49,519 solution. It's all conjecture and Rube Goldberg theory about well down the road, 407 00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:53,000 something could happen and something would go wrong if we don't sort of stop that 408 00:29:53,119 --> 00:29:57,359 right now, who's to protect consumers? But again, there's good things that 409 00:29:57,440 --> 00:30:00,960 happen in the market, and it can be bad things. But if you 410 00:30:00,960 --> 00:30:03,240 have these heavy handed regulation on the front end, you lose all of that 411 00:30:03,240 --> 00:30:08,240 innovation to come. Look at look at Jonathan yeah, look at Jonathan Heights's 412 00:30:08,279 --> 00:30:12,599 new book, you know, uh, you know, looking at the the 413 00:30:14,079 --> 00:30:18,519 it was that the anxious generation, which is like this concept that like too 414 00:30:18,519 --> 00:30:22,519 many kids have access to smartphones, and honestly, it's harder and harder for 415 00:30:22,599 --> 00:30:26,079 parents to crack down and limit their kids access, you know, when it's 416 00:30:26,079 --> 00:30:27,680 feasible for them. So now on the other end, we're going to have 417 00:30:27,720 --> 00:30:30,240 you know, through net neutravelity to too, it's going to be harder and 418 00:30:30,279 --> 00:30:36,640 harder for potential news services to develop that could as as as Commissioner car mentioned, 419 00:30:36,799 --> 00:30:40,880 make it easier for these parents to actually do their job and limit access 420 00:30:41,079 --> 00:30:45,559 through two apps like TikTok and and other things that actually are making their kids 421 00:30:45,599 --> 00:30:49,920 more anxious, Like we should be allowing you know, innovative services to address 422 00:30:49,960 --> 00:30:53,240 the concerns that parents have because again, guess what happens when you have a 423 00:30:53,240 --> 00:30:56,640 smartphone? If you're all everyone has to be smartphone and above and you can't 424 00:30:56,640 --> 00:31:00,160 have data caps, you can have these data limits. Well, now all 425 00:31:00,160 --> 00:31:02,839 these kids are now customers to the big tech companies who are, oh, 426 00:31:02,880 --> 00:31:06,240 by the way, lobbying for net neutrality on the other hand, and so 427 00:31:06,279 --> 00:31:11,640 it's like, you know, what can we do to allow consumers to actually 428 00:31:11,640 --> 00:31:15,480 take to make the choices that they need and want to better protect their interests. 429 00:31:15,480 --> 00:31:18,279 And you know, parents like you know, me and our kid and 430 00:31:18,319 --> 00:31:22,799 my wife we're thinking about we are our daughter age eleven and twelve, Like, 431 00:31:22,839 --> 00:31:26,559 hey, I'd rather have innovative services that limit her access to things that 432 00:31:26,599 --> 00:31:29,880 she should not see, and we should not make making it harder for her 433 00:31:29,920 --> 00:31:36,720 to be able to do that. That's a really interesting point. Hello, 434 00:31:37,039 --> 00:31:41,160 thank you for listening to The Federalist. This is columnist and podcaster Sarah Carter, 435 00:31:41,480 --> 00:31:45,039 and I would like to tell you about your new best friend on Friday 436 00:31:45,079 --> 00:31:49,680 nights, z Biotics. Let me tell you if there's a surefire way to 437 00:31:49,720 --> 00:31:53,920 wake up feeling fresh after a night of drinking, it was Z Biotics z 438 00:31:55,039 --> 00:32:00,079 biotics pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was 439 00:32:00,119 --> 00:32:06,079 invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. 440 00:32:06,079 --> 00:32:10,079 When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. 441 00:32:10,240 --> 00:32:15,000 It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next 442 00:32:15,079 --> 00:32:20,559 day. Z Biotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember 443 00:32:20,559 --> 00:32:24,119 to make z biotics your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll 444 00:32:24,119 --> 00:32:29,599 feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have z biotics before drinks, I 445 00:32:29,640 --> 00:32:32,240 noticed a difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can 446 00:32:32,279 --> 00:32:37,440 confidently plan on waking up with a smile on my face, ready to face 447 00:32:37,480 --> 00:32:43,319 the day. Go to zbiotics dot com slash Radio r Adio to get fifteen 448 00:32:43,359 --> 00:32:47,079 percent off your first order when you use radio r Adio at checkout. Z 449 00:32:47,200 --> 00:32:52,279 biotics is backed with one hundred percent money back guarantee, so if you're ever 450 00:32:52,400 --> 00:32:58,720 unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money. No questions asked that zbiotics 451 00:32:58,759 --> 00:33:05,079 dot com slash are Adio radio and use the code radio r adio at checkout 452 00:33:05,079 --> 00:33:09,440 for fifteen percent off. Thank you Zebiotics for sponsoring this episode and our good 453 00:33:09,519 --> 00:33:16,920 times. Since we've been talking about market interference and speech and national security, 454 00:33:16,960 --> 00:33:21,559 I'd be remiss if I didn't get both of you, I think two of 455 00:33:21,599 --> 00:33:28,440 the most useful voices about the or on the broader problems with TikTok and byte 456 00:33:28,519 --> 00:33:32,799 edance to weigh in on what you expect to see potentially from the Senate in 457 00:33:32,880 --> 00:33:38,640 the days and weeks ahead when it comes to TikTok. So let's start with 458 00:33:38,680 --> 00:33:44,240 you, Nathan. You run the show a few weeks back, and we've 459 00:33:44,279 --> 00:33:49,559 sort of hosted both perspectives on TikTok on this show, and you're very much 460 00:33:49,599 --> 00:33:52,720 in favor of the builds of Bannet with a lot of nuance of course. 461 00:33:52,759 --> 00:33:59,599 But what are you hearing, if anything, about how Senate Republicans may be 462 00:33:59,599 --> 00:34:02,839 even said Democrats will handle this legislation now that it's kind of the ball is 463 00:34:02,880 --> 00:34:07,279 quite literally in their court. Well, first off, I had to commend 464 00:34:07,319 --> 00:34:12,000 you and your team for hosting really good debates and discussions on the paid front 465 00:34:12,000 --> 00:34:15,239 page of Federalist dot com to just even the podcast and on social you know, 466 00:34:15,360 --> 00:34:17,719 a lot of differing opinions, and you guys have fostered that again, 467 00:34:17,760 --> 00:34:22,440 that's an important idea of conservative thought, is that we can foster free speech, 468 00:34:22,639 --> 00:34:24,320 be a free speech and debate and discussion. And so, you know, 469 00:34:24,320 --> 00:34:27,960 I appreciate the opportunity to first come on two weeks ago and then now 470 00:34:28,000 --> 00:34:30,639 to talk further about it. So I'm still I'm still convinced in my approach 471 00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:34,920 that the bill is actually doing the right thing, and I hope that we 472 00:34:34,960 --> 00:34:37,400 can talk more about some of our positions on the language and how we see 473 00:34:37,440 --> 00:34:42,000 this asn't overreach in the right approach. But I would also point out that 474 00:34:42,639 --> 00:34:45,440 I'm hearing positive things in the Senate. It looks like Senator Cantwell and the 475 00:34:45,440 --> 00:34:52,159 Commerce Committee is looking to move on this legislation and her committee and what I've 476 00:34:52,280 --> 00:34:57,239 seen from potential language of the conversation is it's positive. It seems like there's 477 00:34:57,239 --> 00:35:00,400 gonna be an interest in moving forward sets cent A majority leader Schumer has said 478 00:35:00,400 --> 00:35:05,480 that he looks to make progress on this piece of legislation, and so you 479 00:35:05,519 --> 00:35:07,440 know, I'm kind of encouraged to see what the discussion goes from here. 480 00:35:08,000 --> 00:35:12,360 And I'm also encouraged by the discussion and debate. I think that it's important 481 00:35:12,400 --> 00:35:17,320 to discuss this and think about concerns and potential hypothetical concerns and wrestle with it 482 00:35:17,800 --> 00:35:22,280 kind of going forward. In Commissioner car what do you think you haven't been 483 00:35:22,559 --> 00:35:27,960 on since the legislation obviously ended up on the Senate side, So maybe just 484 00:35:28,000 --> 00:35:30,639 a little bit from your position on the legislation itself, and then maybe what 485 00:35:30,679 --> 00:35:34,719 you're hearing as well. Yeah, I agree, I think things looking good 486 00:35:34,840 --> 00:35:37,360 in the Senate. You know, if you step back. Senator Schumer was 487 00:35:37,400 --> 00:35:43,679 on a letter with Senator Cotton back in twenty nineteen expressing serious national security concerns 488 00:35:43,760 --> 00:35:45,719 about TikTok, and so I think it's only amount of time at this point 489 00:35:45,719 --> 00:35:50,480 before the House bill gets signed into law. I think it's a good thing. 490 00:35:50,519 --> 00:35:53,840 The House Bill takes a very smart, targeted approach. It requires TikTok 491 00:35:53,920 --> 00:35:59,320 simply to divest, to break ties with the CCP. In that world, 492 00:35:59,360 --> 00:36:04,000 they can continue to do business in this country like before, and all the 493 00:36:04,199 --> 00:36:06,880 one hundred and seventy million TikTokers out there, I'm not one of them, 494 00:36:06,880 --> 00:36:10,400 but they can continue to use the platform and the House bill includes very very 495 00:36:10,400 --> 00:36:16,840 important protections that go far beyond actually the protections that are in place in current 496 00:36:16,920 --> 00:36:22,320 law today. And so the law does not give the government any sort of 497 00:36:22,360 --> 00:36:30,079 authority to go after individual users. It only applies to websites and applications that 498 00:36:30,199 --> 00:36:37,639 are controlled by one of four foreign adversaries Iran, North Korea, Russian, 499 00:36:37,639 --> 00:36:42,480 Russia, and the list goes on from there, and it also includes real 500 00:36:42,880 --> 00:36:45,400 process protections on the back end as well. Now, some people have looked 501 00:36:45,440 --> 00:36:51,199 at the language direction or control, and they've suggested that if the government simply 502 00:36:51,239 --> 00:36:55,280 says that what you're saying aligns with a talking point from a foreign adversary, 503 00:36:55,360 --> 00:36:59,840 that that's enough under the bill for you to go after And that is absolutely 504 00:37:00,199 --> 00:37:04,480 the case. In fact, the reason why the legislation uses those precise terms 505 00:37:04,519 --> 00:37:09,840 direction or control is because those are terms that are concretely defined in the law. 506 00:37:10,000 --> 00:37:14,679 In fact, there was a very well respected conservative law firm that walked 507 00:37:14,800 --> 00:37:19,639 through all of this and show that there is an exceptionally high bar under the 508 00:37:19,719 --> 00:37:23,199 law to show that you are controlled. If you're just saying something that's consistent 509 00:37:23,280 --> 00:37:29,920 with Russia or China, that is not at all enough to clear that direction 510 00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:32,880 or control language. So the bill has a lot of protections in place. 511 00:37:34,039 --> 00:37:38,239 It takes a smart, targeted approach to the threat that TikTok presents, And 512 00:37:38,519 --> 00:37:43,960 fundamentally, TikTok's threat is one of data flows. For years, TikTok officials 513 00:37:44,000 --> 00:37:50,400 represented that no or effectively no US data gets back to China where members of 514 00:37:50,400 --> 00:37:52,480 the CCP could access it, and about a year and a half ago that 515 00:37:52,599 --> 00:37:59,360 was exposed to be nothing more than gaslighting. Internal TikTok communications showed that quote, 516 00:37:59,559 --> 00:38:02,239 every thing is seen in China, and that's search and browsing history, 517 00:38:02,320 --> 00:38:07,519 keystroke patterns, biometrics, location information, and we know they're using it for 518 00:38:07,559 --> 00:38:12,960 nefarious purposes. TikTok has even had to admit that they were using the information 519 00:38:13,000 --> 00:38:17,239 to avail the locations of specific journalists that we're writing negative stories. And TikTok 520 00:38:17,280 --> 00:38:22,760 has tried to wall off US user data time and time again, and they 521 00:38:22,840 --> 00:38:27,079 keep failing. And they don't fail necessarily because the TikTok people are bad people. 522 00:38:27,679 --> 00:38:31,039 They're failing because they are ultimately working for an entity that is controlled and 523 00:38:31,079 --> 00:38:35,960 beholden to the CCP. So this is the situation where only a structural remedy, 524 00:38:36,320 --> 00:38:39,320 A remedy that breaks that link back to the CCP is going to work. 525 00:38:39,320 --> 00:38:42,440 And if we do that, then the app gets to continue to do 526 00:38:42,480 --> 00:38:45,039 business here and people get to continue to use it. I was going to 527 00:38:45,280 --> 00:38:47,320 jump in, yeah, sorry for you, jump in one more thing. 528 00:38:49,039 --> 00:38:52,679 I'd also point out that like pulling on this has been super fascinating. I 529 00:38:52,039 --> 00:38:55,880 think a lot of us assumed that if you took you know, the app 530 00:38:55,920 --> 00:39:01,840 away from one hundred and seventy million Americans or because consideration about divestment, that 531 00:39:01,920 --> 00:39:07,559 you would have like overwhelming like negativity in an election year and surprising, I 532 00:39:07,599 --> 00:39:09,639 think, not surprising to Commissioner car and I have, but rising I think 533 00:39:09,639 --> 00:39:15,400 a lot of general observers is that actually six and ten Americans actually support the 534 00:39:15,440 --> 00:39:21,559 divestment or potential ban. Public Opinion Strategies put out a poll that had this 535 00:39:21,880 --> 00:39:25,159 several weeks ago that showed I think like seventy plus percent of conservatives and even 536 00:39:25,199 --> 00:39:31,639 like fifty sixty fifty five percent of Democrats and even independence were very much in 537 00:39:31,679 --> 00:39:36,039 favor of this divestment, this physicular legislation. And then Wall Street Journal last 538 00:39:36,039 --> 00:39:40,480 week posted another poll that said similar results that you know the public as they 539 00:39:40,559 --> 00:39:45,440 learned more about this, became more and more concerned. And I think what's 540 00:39:45,440 --> 00:39:50,199 fascinating about that is it's it's it's following conservative ideas. It's been you know, 541 00:39:50,440 --> 00:39:54,960 Representative Mike Allagher and House Republicans who'd been pushing the idea of holding China 542 00:39:54,960 --> 00:39:59,880 accountable and looking at this techtonk legislation. We've seen you know, the President, 543 00:40:00,119 --> 00:40:04,639 president and the Democrats actually following along our lead on this issue. And 544 00:40:04,679 --> 00:40:07,960 so it's encouraging to me that, you know, an issue that Republicans have 545 00:40:07,960 --> 00:40:13,039 been talking about and sertives been talking about for several years is now turning into 546 00:40:13,079 --> 00:40:15,599 something that the rest of the public is recognizing as a problem. And you 547 00:40:15,639 --> 00:40:20,039 know, let's some putic opponents or even recognizing, hey, maybe they're onto 548 00:40:20,079 --> 00:40:22,880 something here. Yeah. I was hoping both of you would get into some 549 00:40:22,920 --> 00:40:27,719 of these threats because both of you are very clear voices on this and have 550 00:40:27,800 --> 00:40:32,840 such great detail of exactly what we've already seen happen with the Forbes journalists and 551 00:40:34,079 --> 00:40:37,760 Punject Texas and all of that. My last question we have both of you 552 00:40:37,840 --> 00:40:42,039 here. My only hang up with the bills honestly that it's not specifically targeted 553 00:40:42,199 --> 00:40:45,880 just exclusively at TikTok, and I wanted to give both of you an opportunity 554 00:40:45,039 --> 00:40:51,039 to just explain, you know, what you think about that. Is it 555 00:40:51,039 --> 00:40:53,360 a threat that it's not from your perspective, targeted just a TikTok kind of 556 00:40:53,440 --> 00:40:58,719 leaves the door open to other countries qualifying under the law. What do both 557 00:40:58,760 --> 00:41:00,880 of you think of that? Yeah, I think the bill actually is really 558 00:41:00,960 --> 00:41:05,159 well done and very narrow. So it does talk about TikTok, and then 559 00:41:05,159 --> 00:41:08,039 you're right, there's a very narrow provision that you know, read in context, 560 00:41:08,119 --> 00:41:12,519 is really only about a situation in which you have something that is the 561 00:41:12,519 --> 00:41:15,639 equivalent of TikTok. Again, so whether TikTok you know, takes all of 562 00:41:15,639 --> 00:41:21,400 the US user data and reruns it under a different name, given the exact 563 00:41:21,519 --> 00:41:24,960 language in the in the bill again, the direction or control when those terms 564 00:41:24,960 --> 00:41:29,920 have been interpret throughout the years by courts, it's an exceptionally high bar that. 565 00:41:29,920 --> 00:41:32,639 Frankly, I can't even think at this point what other application could possibly 566 00:41:32,719 --> 00:41:37,480 meet that standard unless it is, you know, TikTok, or TikTok simply 567 00:41:37,480 --> 00:41:39,440 stands up another shell company. So I think it's a smart approach, and 568 00:41:39,519 --> 00:41:44,519 it helps to strengthen the bill of a tainder argument as well, to make 569 00:41:44,559 --> 00:41:46,159 sure that it's you know, TikTok or anything that is sort of TikTok like. 570 00:41:46,199 --> 00:41:51,800 But again, when you look at the record of TikTok acting at the 571 00:41:51,800 --> 00:41:57,000 behest in control of the CCP, that's the standard that you would have to 572 00:41:57,039 --> 00:42:00,840 meet to get any other application. So it's very narrow. Yeah, I 573 00:42:00,880 --> 00:42:02,960 would support that too, and also point out that, you know, to 574 00:42:04,320 --> 00:42:09,320 ever extend to the concept of foreign adversarial entities has to involve Congress, and 575 00:42:09,400 --> 00:42:14,400 so there's there's congressional control to make sure that it's not extended between before beyond 576 00:42:14,440 --> 00:42:19,360 those four countries. And there's obviously other ramifications for you know, extending that 577 00:42:19,440 --> 00:42:23,360 definition to other countries, just countries you don't like obviously the effects trade and 578 00:42:23,119 --> 00:42:29,280 and and diplomatic relations and all these other other variables to consider. And so 579 00:42:29,440 --> 00:42:32,639 I think the fact that it's limited and it involves the administration and Congress working 580 00:42:32,880 --> 00:42:37,039 honestly in concert together is actually super helpful for why this bill can can hinder 581 00:42:37,679 --> 00:42:43,880 you know, not here, but enable proper oversight and proper balance of power. 582 00:42:44,800 --> 00:42:47,239 Mister Brendan Karr and Nathan Lemur. Thank you both so much for your 583 00:42:47,239 --> 00:42:51,039 time and your work in the space. Good to be with you, Thanks 584 00:42:51,039 --> 00:42:53,960 so much. Thanks again. Of course you've been listening to another edition of 585 00:42:54,000 --> 00:42:58,440 The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dashinski, culture editor here at The Federalist. 586 00:42:58,480 --> 00:43:00,559 Will be back soon with more. Then, be lovers of freedom and 587 00:43:00,679 --> 00:43:08,239 anxious for the Fray. You got me right well, you know