Right here we’re, three days into the second Trump administration, and the president has already served up ample reminders of what his political reign is like: erratic, unpredictable, sporadically pleasant, intrinsically authoritarian, typically horrifying, and at all times a bit bizarre and complicated. We have but to see a lot in any respect on the intercourse entrance (thank goodness), however with tech-related issues, all of the usually Trumpian tendencies have been on full show.
You’re studying Intercourse & Tech, the e-newsletter from Elizabeth Nolan Brown on intercourse, know-how, bodily autonomy, legislation, and on-line tradition. Need extra on intercourse, know-how, and the legislation? Subscribe to Intercourse & Tech. It is free and you may unsubscribe any time.
Take final night time’s full and unconditional pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the creator of darkish internet drug market Silk Highway. Ulbricht was sentenced to 2 life sentences plus 40 years in federal jail for facilitating drug gross sales by means of the web site. Such excessive punishment “ought to give pause even to supporters of the warfare on medication,” my colleague Jacob Sullum advised.
And on the subject of ardent drug-war supporters, Donald Trump—who has, on quite a few events, referred to as for drug sellers to be executed—is means up there.
Besides when he is not. By some means, the identical man who has mentioned drug sellers ought to get the dying penalty has additionally, on quite a few events, spoken out concerning the unfair and disproportionate nature of drug crime punishments. He oversaw sentencing reform and commuted the sentence of nonviolent drug offender Alice Johnson. And now, Trump has pardoned Ulbricht, whose Bitcoin- and Tor-driven market undeniably enabled drug peddling and whose costs included narcotics trafficking, distribution of narcotics by way of the web, and narcotics trafficking conspiracy.
Reminder No. 1: Trump’s statements and actions are sometimes contradictory.
Finally, Ulbricht’s pardon appears to stem from a protracted marketing campaign by libertarians and different supporters to each persuade Trump of the injustice of Ulbricht’s sentence and join Ulbricht’s plight to Trump’s personal. In saying the pardon, Trump mentioned that “the scum that labored to convict [Ulbricht] had been a number of the similar lunatics who had been concerned within the modern-day weaponization of presidency towards me.”
It is nice that Ulbricht is free (and that Trump saved his phrase), however I do not assume Trump’s choice right here tells us something about how Trump will deal with drug crimes or digital marketplaces extra typically.
Reminder No. 2: Trump’s actions appear pushed extra by private relationships and grievances than any underlying philosophy or deep conviction.
Which brings us to TikTok. Trump’s current makes an attempt to save lots of TikTok are a far cry from his actions throughout his first presidency, when Trump tried to successfully ban TikTok by govt order.
However let’s again up. In case you forgot, the Supreme Court docket declined final Friday to cease the divest-or-ban legislation that Congress handed final yr. TikTok briefly went darkish.
Then President Trump declared that he would save TikTok… and in addition perhaps nationalize it? As standard, nobody is sort of certain what he means.
On Fact Social, Trump seemed like he may be OK with ByteDance retaining partial management of the corporate as long as the U.S. authorities additionally received to retain partial possession. (“Subsequently, my preliminary thought is a three way partnership between the present homeowners and/or new homeowners whereby the U.S. will get a 50% possession in a three way partnership arrange between the U.S. and whichever buy we so select,” he posted.) Then, in Oval Workplace comments to reporters, Trump once more floated this “three way partnership” concept however made it sound extra just like the U.S. would merely assist dealer ByteDance’s sale of the corporate and take a reduce of the sale cash. He additionally advised that the federal government may nonetheless play some undefined position in policing the app.
What does any of that basically imply? Nobody is aware of! Maybe Trump himself is not fairly certain. However what is obvious is that this can be a hallmark of Trump management: seemingly off-the-cuff feedback that allude to elaborate plans which will or will not be constitutionally sound, might or will not be severe, and should or will not be ever talked about once more.
Reminder No. 3: Not even Trump has any actual concept what he is speaking about.
Then, on Monday, Trump issued one other govt order telling the Division of Justice and state authorities to not implement the legislation that might ban TikTok. So TikTok would possibly come out of this OK—however that is a hell of an executive-overreaching means to make sure it.
Reminder No. 4: Trump tends to combine his pro-freedom issues with authoritarian impulses.
The dizzying nature of Trump’s political whims leaves little room for formulating expectations.
What’s going to tech coverage be like within the Trump period? I do not assume anybody is aware of.
Throughout his first presidency, Trump was a harsh critic of social media firms, together with TikTok. His administration launched antitrust circumstances towards Google and Fb, which many Republicans noticed as being within the tank for Democrats. And Trump continuously lambasted Part 230 of the Communications Act, which protects free speech on the web by eradicating a few of tech firms’ legal responsibility for third-party speech.
Now, Trump partially owns a social media platform, Fact Social, and he is besties with Elon Musk, who runs X. Lo and behold, we have heard little about Part 230’s flaws these days.
Now the Democrats oppose TikTok, and former President Joe Biden signed a legislation to drive its sale or ban it. Trump responded by positioning himself as TikTok’s champion.
Now, tech leaders—seemingly bored with attempting and failing to appease Democrats—are attempting to cozy as much as Trump and Republicans. Musk, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew all attended Trump’s inauguration.
Theoretically, this all portends a greater tech coverage local weather below Trump 2.0. And within the speedy future, I feel we’ll see it. However to imagine that it’s going to final, one must overlook every thing we have realized concerning the erratic, opportunistic, and personality-driven nature of Trumpian politics.
How lengthy till Trump and Musk quarrel and abruptly we’re listening to from the White Home about how we have to ban algorithms? How lengthy till some Trump-mocking meme tendencies on TikTok and, you realize what, TikTok is a communist propaganda instrument in spite of everything?
Democrats undoubtedly performed politics when it got here to tech coverage, placating and utilizing tech firms when it suited their agenda and lashing out at them when populism constructing, crime-panic stoking, or censorship lust demanded it. Democrat-led tech coverage was a curler coaster, however one you can see the final contours of, at the least. Underneath Trump, we are able to count on a distinct form of tech coverage curler coaster, pushed by the politics of non-public alliances and grievances, and it is anybody’s guess the place it is going.
Extra Intercourse & Tech Information
• Commerce associations NetChoice and TechNet are suing the Shopper Monetary Safety Bureau (CFPB) and its director, Rohit Chopra, over what they name the company’s “tried energy seize over digital funds.” The tech commerce teams argue that the CFPB’s current rule regulating digital fee processors—assume Venmo, Paypal, Money App, Apple Pay, Google Pockets, and so forth.—exceeds its authority and violates the precept of separation of powers. The rule, finalized in November, says the CFPB can conduct “proactive examinations” of those firms to examine their compliance with federal privateness and fraud legal guidelines.
“That is the second lawsuit associated to the regulation,” notes The Verge. “Google filed a lawsuit in December after the CFPB positioned Google Cost Corp. below federal supervision. In an announcement to The Verge, Google spokesperson José Castañeda referred to as the rule ‘a transparent case of presidency overreach.'”
• Being pregnant surveillance? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont and the advocacy group Being pregnant Justice are suing the Vermont Division for Youngsters and Households, alleging that it “relied on baseless allegations a few pregnant lady’s psychological well being to secretly examine her and win custody of her daughter earlier than the newborn was born,” the Related Press reports.
• South Dakota is advancing an age-verification law for grownup web sites.
• One of many many govt orders issued by Trump on his first day again in workplace seems unaware that intersex people exist.
In the present day’s Picture
