[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
US Media Support Tech Regulation—Unless It Comes From China Julianne Tveten ([link removed])


NYT: What China Expects From Businesses: Total Surrender

The New York Times (7/19/21 ([link removed]) ) warns critics of Big Tech not to be "too impressed ([link removed]) by how swiftly Beijing is bringing its tech titans to heel"—because China is forcing these companies to promote the government's effort s "to reduce inequality and promote what the party calls 'collective prosperity.'”

Recently, US media have been aghast at legislation affecting China’s tech sector.

As part of a comprehensive economic initiative ([link removed]) , Beijing has instituted a series of regulations—including fines, IPO suspensions ([link removed]) , data-collection laws and other measures—for technology businesses that have raised concerns regarding power consolidation, labor rights, privacy, cybersecurity and user safety, among other issues. Offenders include ride-hailing giant Didi, the finance-tech Ant Group and multinational conglomerate Tencent Holdings Ltd.

According to major US news sources, the directives are an instance of government overreach, a transgression of which China is routinely ([link removed]) accused ([link removed]) . Beijing has sent a “stark message” (New York Times, 7/5/21 ([link removed]) ) with an “authoritarian tinge” (Bloomberg, 7/27/21 ([link removed]) ). Its multi ([link removed]) -billion ([link removed]) -dollar
([link removed]) corporate targets are thus “casualties” of "Beijing's crackdown on private enterprise" (CNN Business, 9/1/21 ([link removed]) ), from which the government expects “total surrender” (New York Times, 7/19/21 ([link removed]) ).

These reports, curiously, arise as US media and policymakers continue a protracted process of advocating for restrictions on the “Big Four” homegrown tech companies—Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon—citing many of the categories of malfeasance associated with Chinese tech companies. (Normally, US media aren’t this enthusiastic ([link removed]) about corporate regulation; tech companies’ increasingly large share ([link removed]) of ad revenues, which renders them a major competitor for traditional corporate-owned outlets, may help explain this stance.)

Yet no matter how much overlap there may be between each country’s regulatory posture, US media maintain a double standard for corporate tech law in the US and China: In the former, it’s in pursuit of democracy; in the latter, of autocracy.


** 'Promoting competition' vs. 'more authority'
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Biden’s Antitrust Team Signals a Big Swing at Corporate Titans

The New York Times (7/24/21 ([link removed]) ) highlights the "Biden administration’s growing concern that the concentration of power in technology...has hurt consumers and workers, and stunted economic growth."

For US corporate media, Biden’s 2020 electoral victory promised “stronger enforcement of antitrust laws” (AP, 11/27/20 ([link removed]) ) and “tougher regulation” (Washington Post, 1/18/21 ([link removed]) ) of Silicon Valley behemoths. After Biden issued a July executive order ([link removed]) encouraging scrutiny of the tech industry’s anticompetitive practices, Axios deemed him a “trustbuster” (7/9/21 ([link removed]) ) who was “promoting competition” (7/9/21 ([link removed]) ). The New York Times (7/24/21 ([link removed]
iden-antitrust-amazon-google.html) ) added that the Biden administration, stocked with several antitrust “crusaders,” was seeking to “restrain corporate power” and take a “big swing at corporate titans,” including Google, Facebook and Amazon.

China’s enforcement of antitrust policies was met with a markedly different reaction. By July 2021, the country’s State Administration of Market Regulation had fined ([link removed]) a number of internet firms, including Didi, Tencent and Ant Group subsidiary Alibaba, for various antitrust violations. The New York Times (7/19/21 ([link removed]) ) framed this not as a reduction of corporate power for the public interest, but as a totalitarian encroachment on corporate freedom. Beijing, it cautioned, was “using the guise of antitrust to bring powerful tech companies into line with its priorities,” demanding the private sector “surrender with absolute loyalty.”

Wired (7/29/21 ([link removed]) ), too, took an admonitory tone. The “seemingly sudden crackdown,” the magazine warned, “comes amid moves by President Xi Jinping to assert more authority over every aspect of life.” Four months prior, Wired (3/9/21 ([link removed]) ) had referred to Biden’s antitrust appointees as “all-stars.”


** When privacy is 'terrifying'
------------------------------------------------------------

A similar dynamic appears in coverage of privacy and security legislation. By the AP’s estimate (11/27/20 ([link removed]) ), Biden had the potential to “curb” the power of companies that were “endangering consumers’ privacy.” Biden was also lauded (New York Times, 4/21/21 ([link removed]) ) for his recruitment of Tim Wu, an Obama administration alum and “progressive critic” of tech monopolization and data harvesting ([link removed]) , and of Lina Khan, a “progressive trustbuster” known for her user privacy advocacy ([link removed]) . When Biden appointed Khan to the Federal Trade Commission in June, the AP (6/17/21 ([link removed]
7d894c1f85a5d6d2ad4d7d05934e4f8) ) welcomed the “energetic critic,” while the New Yorker (6/21/21 ([link removed]) ) reveled in the “important first step.”
WSJ: China's New Power Play

The Wall Street Journal (6/12/21 ([link removed]) ) reports that China's proposed Personal Information Protection Law "seeks to limit the types of data that private-sector firms can collect"—but this is presented as "yet another move to strengthen the role of the government."

As privacy proponents in the US government are embraced, those in China are questioned. In July, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), an Internet regulator, suspended new user signups and temporarily removed the Didi app from app stores, ostensibly in response to illegal harvesting ([link removed]) of user data. To the New York Times (7/19/21 ([link removed]) ), this qualified Didi as “a target of the government’s regulatory wrath.”

New York Times tech critic Kara Swisher (7/20/21 ([link removed]) ) conjectured that the move was meant to punish Didi for a “spectacular” initial public offering, which constituted “a terrifying government action,” one that was “shrouded in doublespeak about privacy, cybersecurity and sensitive-location information.” Compared to the United States, Swisher wrote, China's efforts to control its tech industry are "much more troubling and malevolent."

In the surrounding months, Beijing had been drafting the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which places limits on corporate and governmental data-mining practices. The Wall Street Journal (6/12/21 ([link removed]) ) characterized the law as part of a “power play,” while AP (8/20/21 ([link removed]) ) described it as “tighten[ing] control.”

Both the AP and the Wall Street Journal acknowledged the user protections the law would usher in, but hedged those gains with concern that the government could still gather and monitor citizens’ data—though the Wall Street Journal (8/17/21 ([link removed]) ) would later concede that “the new draft law bars government organizations from collecting data beyond what is needed to perform ‘legally prescribed duties.’” Interestingly, this surveillance-state caveat wasn’t posed in any of the above praise heaped upon the Biden administration, despite the US’s extensive, documented history ([link removed]) of surreptitiously gathering data on its populace.


** In support of 'too large' companies
------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC: China's Big Tech crackdown is not a model for the U.S.

MSNBC (3/16/21 ([link removed]) ) assures us that our government's motives are pure, whereas enemy intentions are malevolent: "Washington is responding to pressure to improve transparency and accountability ([link removed]) in the industry, Beijing’s motive is to solidify political control."

Lest anyone view China as a leader in tech regulation, an MSNBC opinion piece (3/16/21 ([link removed]) ) insisted that Beijing was no model for Washington:

In the United States, the Biden administration is recruiting high-profile leaders in the Big Tech antitrust space ([link removed]) , but while Washington is responding to pressure to improve transparency and accountability ([link removed]) in the industry, Beijing’s motive is to solidify political control to ensure that no private company will grow too large or deviate from serving the political and economic goals set by the ruling Chinese Communist Party.

Yet isn't the point of antitrust law, by definition, “to ensure that no private company will grow too large”? Who or what will enforce antitrust law, if not a government? Don’t US tech companies, which regularly operate ([link removed]) in ([link removed]) concert ([link removed]) with arms of the state, serve “the political and economic goals” set by the US ruling class?

If US journalists want to take a possible tech crackdown seriously, there should be no reason to find China’s actions so chilling. And, contrary to what media might argue, if the US refuses to take cues from China’s regulatory success, it won’t be likely to achieve much of its own.
Read more ([link removed])

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences (*%7CUPDATE_PROFILE%7C*)
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .