Virginia Democrats Advocate for Data Centers to Secure State House Seat

JOrne McAuliffe, a 33-year-old entrepreneur and former public servant, stands as an unexpected Democratic contender in this month’s Virginia House of Representatives election, especially given a campaign approach that occasionally resembled that of his Republican opponents.

Recently, Mr. McAuliffe joined 13 Democrats who secured Congressional seats in Virginia during a significant electoral win for his party, granting them robust control over state governance. With victories in states like New Jersey and California, this outcome provides a renewed advantage for Democrats nationwide, following a disheartening setback against Donald Trump and the Republican Party the previous year.

The northern Virginia district he aimed to represent, characterized by residential areas, agricultural land, and charming small towns, hadn’t seen a Democratic representative in decades. Thus, McAuliffe campaigned door-to-door on his electric scooter, reaching out to constituents with a pledge to “protect their way of life.” He dismissed the label “woke” and attributed the “chaos” to Washington, D.C., located over an hour away.


One of his primary talking points was a widespread concern resonating with many Democrats today, but with a distinct angle: the adverse impacts of data centers on electricity costs.

“I spent a majority of the year visiting households I never imagined were Democratic,” McAuliffe recounted. “Independents, Republicans, and an occasional Democrat, yet many began shutting their doors on me.”

“However, once they voiced a desire to discuss data centers, it opened a dialogue. That allowed me to draw a contrast, which is rare.”

Loudoun County’s data centers occupy about half of Virginia’s 30th House District, known for its high per capita income, and handle more traffic than any other region globally. While essential for many Internet functions, McAuliffe argued—and many voters concurred—that their presence can be burdensome.

Sizeable as warehouses, these data centers loom over nearby neighborhoods, buzzing with the sounds of servers and machinery. Developers seek to establish facilities in Fauquier County, the district’s other Republican-leaning area, but McAuliffe mentioned that residents are apprehensive about construction on rural farmland, renowned for its scenic vistas. He noted receiving complaints regarding the impact of data centers on electricity bills across the board.

According to a 2024 report from the Virginia General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, the state’s energy demands are projected to double over the next decade, chiefly due to data centers and the substantial infrastructure required to cater to this demand.

The report also indicated that while Virginia’s electricity pricing structures are “appropriately” aligned with facility usage, “energy costs for all consumers are likely to rise” to cover new infrastructure expenses and necessary electricity imports. Earlier this month, Virginia’s public utility regulators approved a rise in electricity rates, though not to the extent Dominion Energy, the state’s primary provider, initially requested.

“The costs tied to infrastructure—the extensive transmission lines and substations—are being passed down to consumers,” McAuliffe explained from a co-working space in Middleburg, Virginia, where his campaign operates.

“These essentially represent taxes that we’ve wrongfully placed on ordinary Virginians to benefit corporations like Amazon and Google. While there may be some advantages for these communities, these companies are capable of affording them, and we must strive to better negotiate those benefits.”

McAuliffe’s opponent was Republican Geary Higgins, who had been elected in 2023. The battle between the two parties proved costly, with Democrats investing nearly $3 million and their adversaries spending just over $850,000, according to records from the Virginia Public Access Project.

This campaign encompassed more than just data centers; McAuliffe also spotlighted reproductive rights and teacher salary increases. Democrats have committed to codifying access to abortion if they gain full power in Virginia’s state government, and the governance in his district deteriorated under Democratic Party criticisms that Higgins failed to return contributions from controversial politicians.

Yet, McAuliffe chose to concentrate on data centers, believing their impacts presented “the most pressing issue we can address.” This focus surprised some of his consultants, and although he acknowledged it was a “somewhat niche topic,” data centers frequently emerged as a primary concern during his door-to-door visits.

To counter Higgins, his campaign even launched a website called data center geary, attempting to associate the Republican (a former Loudoun County Supervisor) with the spread of these facilities. Higgins and his family and allies condemned the efforts as misleading.

Mr. McAuliffe ultimately won with 50.9% of the votes, while Mr. Higgins gathered 49%. In response to a request for an interview, Higgins stated that McAuliffe’s “entire campaign was based on falsehoods regarding me and my history.”

“Thanks to an influx of external funding and high Democratic turnout, he was able to fabricate a misleading caricature of me and narrowly triumph,” Higgins remarked.

As Mr. Trump faced the polls nationwide last year, voters in conservative rural and suburban areas turned away from Democrats, resulting in the party’s loss of the presidency and Congressional control. McAuliffe’s victory leaves some party leaders pondering the lessons Democrats can glean from his campaign.

“In typically red regions, he identified common issues that resonated with both Republicans and Democrats while making a convincing case for solutions,” noted Democratic Rep. Suhas Subrahmanyam, who represents McAuliffe’s district.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin, who campaigned alongside McAuliffe, characterized him as “an extraordinary candidate who triumphed by focusing squarely on the relevant issues of his district.”

“Democrats are capable of winning in any setting, especially in suburbs and rural environments, when they have candidates who commit themselves to addressing the genuine needs of their community. Presently, what Americans require is the capability to manage their expenses,” stated Martin.

Chaz Natticomb, founder and executive director of Virginia’s nonpartisan election monitoring organization State Navigate, remarked that while McAuliffe may not have surpassed Democrat Abigail Spanberger’s standout gubernatorial victory, his success in garnering votes illustrates his appeal to some Republicans over Higgins.

“He outperformed everyone else, primarily because he gained the support of Republican-leaning voters,” Natticombe concluded.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Senate Democrats Aim to Reinstate NOAA Database Monitoring $1 Billion in Natural Disasters

Senate Democrats are working to reinstate a database that monitored billions of dollars in climate and weather-related disasters for decades, which was discontinued by the Trump administration this past May.

Since 1980, NOAA has kept a disaster database for events causing damages over $1 billion in the U.S., but the agency halted its initiatives this spring due to budget cuts in climate science research under the Trump administration.

The database and its annual reports shed light on how climate change is influencing extreme weather patterns, including increased travel to flood-prone areas and rising wildfire incidents. Lawmakers have utilized the report in assessing disaster funding while raising awareness about natural disaster costs.

In a statement to NBC News in May, a spokesperson from NOAA indicated that the closure of the database was “consistent with evolving priorities and staffing changes.”

Currently, Senate Democrats, led by Peter Welch, D-Vt., have introduced a bill that mandates NOAA to revive the database and update it at least biannually. Congress holds the power to dictate NOAA’s budget and outline its administrative functions.

Welch stated, “Our legislation is crucial to reversing the reckless actions of the Trump administration, restoring this database, and mitigating the expenses associated with emergency preparedness and natural disasters. This database is essential for understanding the financial implications of constructing homes, businesses, and communities nationwide after significant weather events.”

Neither the White House nor NOAA has provided a response to requests for comments.

More than a dozen senators have co-sponsored the bill, including Sen. Angela of Brooks and Chris Van Hollen, who represents Maryland, where NOAA is based.

This legislation may face uphill battles in becoming law as Republicans, who hold the Senate, are not supporting the bill.

The introduction of this new bill reflects mounting concerns and protests regarding funding at NOAA and other climate-focused organizations. Notably, NOAA’s database has seen leading scientists resign, with some leaving the agency in May due to the planned closure of the database. One of them, Smith, has since joined Climate Central, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to climate change, to continue the work he once conducted at NOAA.

Tom Di Liberto, a spokesperson for Climate Central, indicated that the organization has refrained from commenting on current policies or proposed legislation.

“We look forward to enhancing our in-house $1 billion disaster dataset,” Di Liberto noted in an email.

From 1980 to 2024, NOAA’s database has recorded a staggering total of $40 billion in disaster-related expenses. In the previous year alone, NOAA reported $27 billion in disasters, amounting to around $182.7 billion in costs. This year ranks as the second-lowest for reported multi-billion dollar disasters since 2023.

The analysis provided “direct costs” of disasters, encompassing damage to buildings, infrastructure, and crops. However, it did not factor in other important considerations, such as loss of life, health-related costs from disasters, or economic impacts on “natural capital,” including forests and wetlands, as detailed in a 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service.

NOAA adjusts its data annually to account for inflation.

Previous Reports highlight that developments in hazardous areas vulnerable to floods, wildfires, and other natural disasters have intensified over time, leading to an increase in both the number and cost of weather and climate disasters, ultimately raising the number of at-risk assets.

Moreover, climate scientists assert that extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. Climate change is raising temperatures, heightening the risks of heat waves, intense precipitation, and rapidly intensifying hurricanes.

NOAA has utilized a combination of private and public data to generate estimates, integrating information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Fire Centers, as well as private insurance data.

Like NOAA, these institutions are also experiencing budget cuts.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Democrats Question Cuts Leader: Who’s Making the Decisions?

As the Trump administration winds down its recent medical research funding initiatives, there have been ongoing concerns among scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health regarding Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s level of autonomy as the director of the institution.

The government’s efficiency project, championed by Elon Musk to reduce costs, has impacted decisions related to the cancellation or postponement of research grants. Some initiatives have also been adversely affected by President Trump’s confrontation with universities over anti-Semitism. However, during a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Dr. Bhattacharya had a chance to clarify his influence at the NIH but opted not to take ownership of the institution’s longstanding fundraising efforts.

When questioned about the freeze on grant payments to Northwestern University, Dr. Bhattacharya remarked, “That occurred before my tenure,” referring to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He emphasized that the proposal to cut the NIH budget to $18 billion (a nearly 40% reduction) stemmed from “congress-administrator collaboration,” and he refrained from elaborating on how these cuts might impact institutions.

Further funding cuts were necessitated by rising research costs—an action integrated into the administration’s 2026 budget proposal. Dr. Bhattacharya mentioned ongoing litigation, stating, “I don’t want to delve into it.”

Several Democrats on the committee expressed confusion regarding the decision-making process at the agency.

Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, asked, “Who is withholding these funds?” citing evidence that the NIH reduced grants by billions compared to the previous year. “Is it you? Is it the OMB?” she inquired, referencing the Office of Management and Budget. “Who makes these decisions?”

Dr. Bhattacharya responded, “There are many various decisions. For instance, it was his choice to pivot from what is termed ‘politicized science,’ a phrase he previously used to describe research concerning diversity and equity issues. However, he asserted that restricting research funding at Harvard and other prominent institutions was in “collaboration with the administration.”

Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois reacted sharply after Dr. Bhattacharya distanced himself from the decisions regarding funding for the halted study at Northwestern.

An email from an NIH staff member in mid-April, weeks post Dr. Bhattacharya’s confirmation, instructed employees to refrain from issuing grants to Northwestern and various other universities, without notifying them of the reasons for the funding freeze.

“The buck stops at your office,” Durbin said to Dr. Bhattacharya. “Don’t shift the blame.”

The Trump administration’s plans for significant spending cuts at the agency have drawn criticism from both parties, including Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine.

She told Dr. Bhattacharya that the proposed cuts are “very intrusive,” warning that they could delay or halt the development of effective treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and type 1 diabetes, potentially leaving the U.S. “lagging behind China.”

In response, Dr. Bhattacharya noted that the NIH is engaged in Alzheimer’s and other disease research and will collaborate with lawmakers to address “the health needs of all Americans.”

The director hinted at a possible agreement between the Trump administration and major universities regarding the restoration of medical research funding, yet he did not offer details on the prospects of such an agreement or its prerequisites. “I am very hopeful for a resolution with the universities regarding the grants that have been suspended,” he stated.

In recent years, the NIH has abruptly terminated over 1,300 grant awards and postponed funding for more than 1,000 additional projects. On Monday, numerous NIH employees signed a letter asserting that these actions were dictated by ideological biases and lacked input from scientific staff, effectively suppressing research on health disparities, COVID-19, climate change, and the impacts on sexual health.

On Tuesday, Dr. Bhattacharya stated that scientists have established a process for appealing against funding reductions, and the agency intends to file appeals within weeks.

Source: www.nytimes.com

California Democrats Urge Return of National Weather Service Staff

California House Democrats have urged the National Weather Service (NWS) to reinstate terminated employees and initiate the hiring of new forecasters, following the suspension of 24-hour operations for weather predictions in Sacramento and Hanford.

In a letter addressed to deputy administrators of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Howard Luttonick and Commerce Secretary Laura Grimm, 23 Congressional Democrats criticized recent reductions in weather services, warning that it signals the onset of a public safety crisis with serious implications. The Weather Services division falls under NOAA, which is managed by the Department of Commerce.

“We demand the immediate reinstatement of all workers who have been terminated in these offices, the lifting of the federal employment freeze at NWS, and the establishment of adequate staffing at the Sacramento and Hanford weather forecasting offices to maintain their 24/7 operations,” the council members stated.

Since January, over 500 staff members from the Weather Bureau have departed the agency due to widespread layoffs initiated by the Trump administration, targeting many probationary positions. As a result, approximately 43% of the nation’s 122 weather offices are operating with staffing levels exceeding 20%. Independent meteorologists caution that these cuts may lead to delays in weather predictions and warnings, raising public safety concerns that have pressured the administration.

Legislators from California noted that the weather forecasting offices in Hanford and Sacramento were particularly hard hit, compromising their ability to provide continuous staffing around the clock.

“Currently, the Sacramento office has seven vacant meteorologist positions out of 16, while the Hanford office is short eight out of 13. Both offices are functioning at half their capacity as they approach the peak of wildfire season,” the letter states. “If the NWS Weather Forecast Offices in Sacramento and Hanford cannot monitor overnight conditions across the entire Central Valley, it jeopardizes the safety of our residents.”

The Weather Bureau typically provides meteorologists to assist firefighters during the wildfire season.

“This is an imprudent and unwarranted risk that does not serve the American public,” the letter declared. “Halving the staffing levels in offices responsible for forecasting wildfires, atmospheric rivers, and natural disasters endangers lives and undermines government efficiency.”

NOAA communications director Kim Doster reaffirmed that the NWS is dedicated to prioritizing public safety.

“The National Weather Service continues to fulfill its core mission amidst recent restructuring and is taking measures to prioritize critical research and services necessary for keeping American citizens safe and informed,” Doster stated in an email.

The Hanford office of the Weather Bureau is situated in the San Joaquin Valley, not far from the site of the longstanding Lake Tulare reconstruction in 2023.

The Central Valley region is responsible for producing 40% of the country’s fruits and nuts, according to the US Geological Survey. Farmers in the Central Valley depend on accurate forecasts for making informed decisions about planting, irrigation, and harvesting.

In the meantime, Sacramento forecasters are predicting extreme heat and a heightened risk of wildfires this weekend, indicating an early onset of the wildfire season.

Representative Jim Costa, who represents parts of the San Joaquin Valley and has received forecasts from the Hanford office, facilitated a letter to NOAA. Other notable signatories include Councillors Nancy Pelosi, Eric Swalwell, and Doris Matsui, amongst the 22 others.

Pressure has been mounting for months, calling for reductions in weather services.

One external meteorologist reported that weather balloon launches have been curtailed to about 12 understaffed offices, noting that missed balloon releases hinder better understanding of tornado risks during thunderstorm events near Omaha, Nebraska.

Following this incident, Nebraska Representative Mike Flood intervened with the administration and obtained additional forecasters temporarily assigned to an office near Omaha.

Earlier this month, five former directors of the Weather Bureau cautioned that further staffing cuts could lead to unnecessary fatalities.

“Our greatest fear is that the weather offices are severely understaffed, resulting in unnecessary loss of life,” wrote a former superintendent who served from 1988 to 2022.

NOAA has attempted to address the staffing shortage by temporarily reallocating personnel to fill gaps in the workforce and exploring more permanent reallocations within the agency.

Approximately two weeks ago, NOAA considered transferring 76 meteorologists and a total of 155 staff members to play a vital role.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

House Democrats to Propose Legislation Aimed at Saving NOAA

House Democrats are focusing on staffing issues at the National Weather Service field office, aiming to pass legislation swiftly to thwart further funding and staffing cuts from the Trump administration affecting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially following severe storms nationwide.

As reported by NBC News, the proposed amendment to the Republican Budget Adjustment Bill safeguards NOAA from disbandment and prevents its responsibilities from being shifted to other federal entities, as well as protecting its website and datasets.

Democratic representatives including Eric Sorensen from Illinois, Joe Negas from Colorado, and Wesley Bell from Missouri are poised to introduce these amendments early on Wednesday.

This legislation underscores Congressional worries about staffing levels at the National Weather Service, particularly after the Trump administration’s layoffs of prosecutors and the offering of early retirement packages to long-serving employees. Recently, a short-staffed weather room managed severe thunderstorms and tornado outbreaks during a weekend that resulted in at least 28 fatalities in the Midwest and South.

“With hurricane season on the horizon and extreme weather becoming more frequent, we cannot afford to jeopardize NOAA,” said Moskowitz, a former director of Florida Emergency Management, in an emailed statement.

Sorensen, the sole meteorologist in Congress, emphasized:

“As a meteorologist who has reported on severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, I understand the critical need for the National Weather Service to be fully staffed at all times.”

Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill, of Rockford, Illinois, in 2023.
Chris Nieves/USA Today Network

However, the amendment faces significant opposition from Republicans who control the House. The Trump administration’s initial budget proposal proposed cutting over $1.5 billion from NOAA.

The National Weather Service is working to address staffing shortages this spring. Recently, NOAA initiated a “period of reallocation” to recruit 76 meteorologists for critical roles that were left vacant due to budget cuts.

At least eight of the nation’s 122 weather forecast offices, including in Sacramento, California; Goodland, Kansas; and Jackson, Kentucky, anticipate reducing or discontinuing overnight operations within the next six weeks, according to Tom Fahy, director of the National Weather Service employee organization. He noted that over 52 of the weather forecast offices in the U.S. are experiencing staffing shortages exceeding 20%.

The National Weather Service has not provided additional details regarding staffing levels at its various offices.

“The National Weather Service remains committed to its mission of delivering life-saving forecasts, warnings, and decision support services to the public,” stated NOAA’s communications director, Kim Dester, in an email. “In the near future, NWS will update its service level standards for weather forecast offices to adapt to changes in human resources while prioritizing mission-essential operations.”

Last weekend, the Jackson office of Kentucky was put to the test during dangerous storms statewide. Fahy mentioned in an interview that staff worked overtime to manage the situation with “every available hand,” although the challenges were anticipated ahead of time.

“We had sufficient lead times in monitoring supercells,” Fahy explained, adding that unforeseen serious events could arise at any moment. “A severe thunderstorm has the potential to generate tornadoes and multiple tornadic activity, which can be difficult to predict.”

Meteorologists outside of the agency noted that forecasters in Jackson and other offices performed admirably during the tumultuous weekend but expressed concerns that operational pressures could overwhelm the already stretched staff.

“The tornado warnings were issued very effectively,” remarked Chris Vaguski, meteorologist and research program manager at Wisconet, a network of weather stations in Wisconsin, though he emphasized the uncertain long-term impact of staff fatigue.

“How do forecasters recover physically, mentally, and emotionally? Will this affect the quality of their warnings?” he inquired.

Vaguski noted that the warning time for tornadoes issued by the Jackson office exceeded 15 minutes, which is an improvement over the average performance.

Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor at Northern Illinois University, stated that while assessing the impact of staffing shortages is challenging, meteorological services may face declines in performance as fewer meteorologists are available for critical tasks.

“It’s challenging to evaluate performance based on a single significant event,” Gensini stated. “But we should prepare for a gradual decline in performance, though quantifying that impact may be difficult.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Democrats remove Trump-appointed FTC chair

President Trump is being sued by two former Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners for firing them, alleging it was an illegal executive overreach. Trump dismissed commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya on March 18, disrupting the bipartisan setup of the agency. In a U.S. District Court lawsuit, Slaughter’s and Bedoya’s lawyers claimed that their removal violated federal law. They referenced a 1935 Supreme Court precedent stating the president cannot fire members of an independent regulatory commission solely due to policy disagreements.

The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment, previously asserting that Trump has the authority to manage administrative personnel. This lawsuit is part of a larger legal battle over Trump’s expansion of his powers, with over 50 court decisions temporarily halting his administration’s actions. The fight also extends to regulators who are meant to be independent of direct White House control.

Slaughter and Bedoya’s lawsuit named two Republican FTC commissioners and the agency’s executive director as defendants. They cited the 1914 law protecting commissioners from arbitrary removal, reinforced by Supreme Court rulings. Trump’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies have faced backlash from legal challenges.

Trump signed an executive order affecting several agencies, requiring proposed regulations to be submitted to the White House for review. This move tightens the White House’s grip on agency operations. Despite legal battles, Trump continues to assert his authority over regulatory bodies.

The FTC, involved in high-profile cases against tech giants like Meta and Amazon, faces ongoing disputes regarding corporate practices and antitrust issues. With a focus on online platforms, the FTC is navigating complex legal challenges under Ferguson’s leadership.

In a letter, the White House argued that the Supreme Court’s protections for FTC commissioners do not apply to current leaders. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing struggle between Trump’s administration and independent regulatory bodies.

The lawsuit alleges that Slaughter and Bedoya were abruptly removed from their positions at the FTC without justification. Their legal battle exemplifies the broader conflict over the administration’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies.

The lawsuit filed by Slaughter and Bedoya sheds light on the power struggles within the FTC and the broader implications of presidential authority over independent regulatory bodies.

The FTC’s battles with tech giants and corporate entities underscore the agency’s critical role in regulating antitrust practices and protecting consumers. Under heightened scrutiny, the agency’s actions reflect the evolving landscape of online platforms and corporate accountability.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Democrats are targeting popular, unelected billionaires like Elon Musk in a shooting training exercise

During most of the 17-minute interview, Elon Musk adhered to his agenda. He portrayed himself as a tech-savvy individual on a mission to “eliminate waste and fraud” in government.

Despite the significant backlash he faced, Musk claimed that his cost-cutting initiatives had made substantial progress, as he shared with Fox business commentator Larry Kudrow. He emphasized his goal to prevent America from going bankrupt.

However, Kudlow pushed Musk to consider the future. Would the concept of “government efficiency” (DOGE) still be relevant in a year? Musk acknowledged that his task was not entirely complete. He pointed to federal programs that support retirees, disabled individuals, and other social safety net initiatives as areas where significant spending could be reduced.

While Trump and Republicans have traditionally considered programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as untouchable, Musk suggested they could become key targets for cuts, sparking backlash from Democrats.

Democrats criticized Musk for proposing cuts to programs that many vulnerable Americans depend on. Musk’s statements led to concerns about the potential loss of essential government services and benefits.

Despite the pushback, Musk received praise from Trump and Republicans for his work, but signs of concern among Republicans were becoming apparent.

In light of Musk’s proposals, Democrats and critics highlighted the potential negative impact on retirees and vulnerable Americans. Musk’s rhetoric around waste and fraud in federal programs drew skepticism from both sides of the political spectrum.

The White House issued a fact check in defense of Musk’s comments, emphasizing his commitment to eliminating waste while protecting American interests. Republicans also clarified that they were not considering cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

As tensions and concerns around Musk’s proposals grew, Democrats wrestled with how to address his influence. Musk’s impact on various government programs and policies sparked a broader debate about the role of billionaires in shaping American politics.

The ongoing debate surrounding Musk’s involvement in government initiatives has raised concerns among Americans from diverse political backgrounds. The future of Musk’s influence and the implications of his proposals remain uncertain.

Source: www.theguardian.com

When will Democrats come to the realization that big tech does not support their agenda?

a■ As Democrats consider how to counter the Trump administration, they need to accept a very simple lesson from the past eight years. Big tech and corporations are part of the opposition forces working on behalf of Donald Trump, not allies of the Democratic Party working against Trump and Trumpism.

One would think there is no need to point out what appears to be an obvious fact. Still, some Democrats are trying to get closer to big tech companies and downplaying the importance of antitrust policy regarding authoritarian risks. For example, a few days ago, the largest Democratic superpack, Priorities USA, held a large resistance strategy session sponsored by “friends of google“.

As another example, Adam Jentleson, political writer and former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, writes: recent works The New York Times particularly criticized the fight against monopolies as a “niche issue.” He argued that there was a dichotomy between table issues and challenging corporate power, and that the focus should be on the former.

The belief that big technology, and big business more broadly, serves the Democratic Party has already been tested and turned out to be untrue.

When Trump was elected in 2016, one of the central pillars of Democratic resistance was to use big tech platforms as a counterbalance. If you remember, Google’s CEO also Participated in anti-Trump demonstration. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and pre-Elon Musk’s Twitter have been reprimanded for using technology that enables extremism, but Democrats are pushing for changes to regulation of algorithm design, liability rules, or Instead of moving aggressively to split, it focused on encouraging platforms on editorial policy.

The assumption was that they would be able to defeat Trump and Maga-ism and corral them into a set of “correct” editorial practices that would help limit the scope of his rhetoric in the short term. This is the context in which the “misinformation and disinformation” framework arose.

We use this phrase all the time, but it’s worth thinking about how strange it is. Misinformation can refer to inadvertent lies and disinformation can refer to intentional lies, but the term can also encompass information that is factually correct but misleading, such as information about Barack Obama. there is. claimed In 2022, “suppression of true information” will occur if such suppression is carried out for purposes such as “political gain” or “targeting people you don’t like.”

These new categories not only infuriated those caught up in broad and vague definitions, but also diverted Democratic attention away from issues of power. The misinformation/disinformation framework is partially compatible with partnering with big tech companies as an anti-fascist alliance. We, the science-based Democratic Party, will succeed in working with the world’s largest technology companies to protect America.

Eight years later, Democrats lost the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Major tech platforms are full of extremist content. Big tech companies should no longer look like allies. Not only is Mr. Musk fully entrenched at the top of the power table, right next to Mr. Trump, but the CEOs of Meta, Alphabet, Apple, and Amazon all reached out to Mr. Trump before the election. He probably took it seriously. his threat Mark Zuckerberg would go to jail if he opposed it, but he’s probably just recognizing that Trump is the titan of deregulation.

musk He is said to have participated in Recent phone conversation between President Trump and Google CEO. It is expected that dozens of such meetings at the highest level will occur and strong relationships will emerge. And instead of repeatedly claiming that the tech giants have too much power, we have spent eight years arming them with language they can use to suppress dissent.

repetition vote It turns out that voters actually hate corporate monopolies, and that antitrust politics is very popular. I don’t want to overstate this point – for 30 years, from 1980 to 2020, antitrust politics disappeared in America. It’s fair to argue that we can do more experimentation with how we talk about anti-monopoly policy, especially towards big tech companies. that. But we should be very concerned about its content.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon have destroyed local journalism, a real bulwark against authoritarian leaders, while coddling real dictatorships. They currently dominate the digital advertising industry. According to a recent study, if news organizations were paid the profits they made by acting as intermediaries between readers and writers, Expected to be delivered between $12 billion and $14 billion One year. The very journalists and news organizations we rely on for fact-checking and fact-checking fear being shadowbanned. Jeff Bezos’ fear of President Trump shows how it affects editorial content.

Thankfully, thanks to the work of the Department of Justice under Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Cantor, Google has been officially recognized by the courts as an illegal monopoly, and other antitrust cases involving Facebook and Amazon have The case is pending in court. But even if Google is forced to sell Chrome, which seems possible, it now seems grotesque that Democrats in power can’t bring serious tech-disruption legislation to a vote. He didn’t seem to be trying to stop the emerging power couple of Trump and tech.

As experts try to sort out the lessons of how Kamala Harris lost an election she looked like she could win, we look back further and remember the real lessons of 2016. That would be good. The idea is that to align with the big tech oligarchy is to align with the state. Democratic Party and the Destruction of Democracy.

  • Zephyr Teachout is a professor at Fordham Law School and author of Break ‘Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money.

Source: www.theguardian.com