America

Critical case in the US: Big tech companies vs government intervention

Published

05.03.2024 13:06

On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard a significant case that challenges some of the fundamental ideas that have guided the American economic order for the last fifty years.

The case, known as ‘NetChoice v. Paxton’, raises the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits economic regulation of technology platforms such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok under the guise of ‘free speech’.

NetChoice functions as a trade association for online businesses. NetChoice’s members include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, Nextdoor, PayPal, Snap, TikTok, Verisign, Waymo, and X. The list of members comprises some of the biggest names in the tech industry.

NetChoice and its financial resources

NetChoice is a lobbying group funded by Google, Facebook, Amazon and TikTok. It primarily sues against public rules designed to restrict such companies.

Its budget is huge, accounting for about 15% of the entire Anti-Monopoly department of the federal government.

NetChoice immediately sued to block the law, as well as a similar law in Florida. Initially, the big tech firms attempted to frame the case as a ‘partisan fight’ by claiming that Texas was defending political conservatives against them.

However, this argument failed as there are other laws, such as California’s ‘California Age Appropriate Design Code Act’, which NetChoice sued to block.

Summary of cases

In 2021, Florida and Texas passed laws mandating that social media platforms with over 50 million American users cannot discriminate against users based on their viewpoint. These laws were a clear reaction to Donald Trump’s expulsion from Twitter and Facebook.

In 2021, the two technology groups challenged the Florida law in federal court. The district court blocked enforcement of the injunction and determined that it likely violated the First Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with the trade groups after Florida appealed the decision.

The outcome of the case will have a direct impact on the multi-trillion dollar market, with potential political and social consequences in the US. Big Tech firms face claims related to anti-monopoly, privacy rights, civil rights, and free speech issues. Congress and state legislatures are taking action to address ‘surveillance advertising’ and the exploitation of children by these companies.

This case may disrupt counter-political moves as Big Tech companies’ lawyers claim that the US Constitution does not allow elected officials to interfere with private technology platforms, even when their decisions have significant societal consequences.The case has raised interesting and bizarre questions as arguments unfolded. For instance, Facebook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, argues that the company has the First Amendment right to discriminate racially or religiously in its services or to create services that addict children.

Similarly, Google’s lawyer confirms that the company can delete Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow’s Gmail account due to political disagreement.

During a discussion, Judge Neil Gorsuch inquired about the ability of technology companies, such as Gmail, to delete emails and private direct messages that contain sensitive topics like race, politics, and religion. Clement responded that the decision would depend on the application of the ‘equal protection’ clause, but also noted that this issue involves editorial judgments.

Big Tech received support from a variety of third parties, including the ACLU, privacy law professors, companies like Etsy, historians, civil rights groups, the US Chamber of Commerce, and national security experts such as General Stanley McChrystal.

The judges are uncertain

It is yet to be determined how the Supreme Court judges, who are hearing the case, will address the issue of ‘freedom of expression’.

Judge Gorsuch, for instance, inquired whether ‘algorithms specifically designed to lure young people into addiction or suicide, depression and that sort of thing’ are covered by freedom of expression and can, therefore, be regulated by the state.

Counsel Clement responded that the state could not regulate them.During the hearing, Judge Barrett inquired about the possibility of big tech companies banning users based on their religion.The response was affirmative, indicating that if Google wished to restrict its platform to only Catholics, it would have the right under the First Amendment to exclude Protestants from a Catholic gathering.

Jim Crow in anti-regulation

The argument that technology companies should not be regulated because the government cannot interfere can be traced back to the Civil Rights movement in the US and the conservative reaction to it.

This is reminiscent of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the views of Robert Bork, the Yale University law professor who opposed it. The new case has brought these issues to the forefront once again. Bork judged that racial discrimination could be defended as long as it was ‘privatised’ in relation to the civil rights movement’s struggle against it.His article in The New Republic defending racial segregation was highly controversial. The descendants of Southern slave owners expressed their satisfaction, with a South Carolina banker even writing to Bork that it was ‘very encouraging for them to have a Goldwater man at Yale’.Barry Goldwater was a conservative senator from Arizona.

The editors of The New Republic argued against Bork’s legal opinions. Private property owners have always been able to conduct their affairs within certain public impositions. For example, under English common law, an innkeeper was obliged to admit all customers, provided they were sober and regular. Southern businesses in the US and Bork were abusing private property law and demanding exemption from public obligations. The vocabulary is accessible, and the grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.

Bork did not defend racism in his article; he found it ‘abhorrent’. However, he believed that the state should not dictate the terms on which businessmen use their private property. The text is now structured logically, with short and simple sentences in the active voice. No changes in content were made.

Southern property rights combined with neoliberal financialisation

In effect, the Yale professor was echoing the arguments of slavery advocates on both sides of the Atlantic during the American Civil War. Southern slave owners and their supporters argued that their slaves were their private property and that state interference in private property was contrary to the fundamental principle of liberalism.

Although the abolitionist Northern republicans won the American Civil War, a compromise was made with the South immediately after the war, giving white landowners there the right to practice racial segregation. These laws, known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’, reinforced racial segregation in the South, with blacks, for example, no longer allowed to enter buses or hotels with whites.

The origin of the term ‘Jim Crow’ is attributed to ‘Jump Jim Crow’, a black-faced song and dance character first created in 1828 by white actor Thomas D. Rice. As a result of Rice’s fame, Jim Crow had become a pejorative expression meaning ‘Negro’ by 1838. When Southern legislatures passed racial discrimination laws against African Americans at the end of the 19th century, these laws became known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’.

Although racial segregation was ended at the federal level in 1964, these arguments continued to have a strong political impact. The South had always favoured civil service rules and anti-monopoly rules because Southerners saw these legal instruments as checks on the overwhelming power of Northern capital.

In the 1960s, Bork opposed anti-monopoly laws that protected small firms against large corporations. He argued that these laws were ‘inefficient’ and harmful to consumers. Large corporations cherished Bork after his article in Fortune magazine, and he gained access to ‘research’ funds with attractive fees.

During the neoliberal era, the trend towards deregulation led to the politicisation of small anti-monopoly corporations and white Southern property owners on an ‘anti-state interventionist’ platform. These groups aligned with the deregulatory aspirations of the era’s hyper-financialisation.

Interestingly, Bork’s theses also influenced the liberal left. Bork believed in economic specialisation and concentration of capital, but he was against populism and small businesses. He viewed monopolies’ price controls as their property rights and a matter of consumer rights.

As a result, he supported all forms of price controls except those based on gender and racial discrimination. The case before the Supreme Court may clarify whether there are any obstacles to this. Bork’s anti-Civil Rights and pro-monopoly reasoning in Big Tech’s defence is easily traceable.

Up Next

US-Europe productivity gap widens

Don't Miss

US is worried after regional country’s attention toward Taliban

Erman Çete

America

Musk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative

Published

18 hours ago

02/10/2026

Harici.com.tr

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, has assumed the co-directorship of a Pentagon initiative focused on the future of warfare, known as “Project Meridian”.

Musk’s new role was announced by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth.

Musk, who has long expressed his conviction that wars will ultimately be fought with autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles, will advise the project as co-director alongside Palmer Luckey, founder of defence start-up Anduril, and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

In a memorandum issued at the Pentagon, Hegseth stated that the group would “examine the battlefields of the future” and “determine which weapons and technologies warfighters must employ to achieve dominance in these environments.”

During his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Hegseth said:

“The best predictors of future conflict do not reside exclusively within the Pentagon. Obvious biases and risks arise when we task ourselves with both framing the questions and answering them.”

Hegseth stated that this initiative would commence immediately and that, following his address, he would convene with Musk, Luckey, and Gingrich at a secure location.

Project Meridian will have 120 days to “ruthlessly map the trajectory of wars, domains, and technologies”, a process that will culminate in the public disclosure of its findings alongside a classified annex.

Hegseth outlined an expansive mandate extending “from beneath the surface of the Earth to beyond the Moon.”

Rather than formulating new military strategies or policies, the panel will seek to identify “the domains we must seize and the capabilities we must master”, focusing on the effort to “discover, develop, and field” the weapons and systems that next-generation American troops may require.

The group is expected to submit a report containing recommendations to him by the end of January.

In 2024, Musk remarked: “Future wars will be entirely about drones and hypersonic missiles.” This was merely one of several similar statements he has made in recent years.

For Musk, whose oversight role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ended in turmoil and escalated into a dispute with President Donald Trump over Trump’s spending bill, this appointment marks his formal return to government in an official capacity.

Musk and Trump ultimately reconciled, and Musk attended a meeting on artificial intelligence safety at the White House this week alongside other technology leaders.

Meridian forms part of a broader push announced by Hegseth to restructure the military around autonomous warfare and rapidly advancing technologies.

Hegseth announced the establishment of the Autonomous Warfare Command (AUTOWARCOM), a new four-star combatant command endowed with what he termed “service-like authorities” to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.

The Department of War will also begin phasing in new occupational frameworks across all military branches to establish specialised career tracks for what Hegseth described as “the next generation of autonomous warfighters.”

“We should have conceived an Autonomous Warfare Command a decade ago,” Hegseth said, explaining that Meridian aims to gaze far enough ahead to enable the military to anticipate the next technological shift rather than lag behind.

America

Pentagon breach exposes personal records of three million people

Published

3 days ago

30/09/2026

Harici.com.tr

A cyberattack targeting the US Department of War’s personnel database has resulted in the leak of personal information belonging to approximately 3 million people.

Speaking to ABC News, a Pentagon official stated that the system accessed by unauthorised individuals contained the records of 2,760,000 living persons and 294,000 deceased individuals.

The Military Times portal, which first broke the news, had reported the number of affected individuals as approximately 4 million based on two sources. The Pentagon official subsequently conveyed different figures to ABC News.

The leak encompasses Social Security numbers and duty information belonging to military personnel and civilian employees. According to an official notification examined by Military Times, the compromised records may also include names, dates of birth, contact information, sex, race, and military occupational specialties.

The unauthorised access to the information system of the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) lasted for approximately nine months, between October 2025 and 16 July 2026.

ABC News reported that the access in question was obtained by a small number of third-party users. The vulnerability was closed after it was identified.

The DMDC is considered one of the Pentagon’s primary personnel records centres. More than 60 million records belonging to active-duty personnel, reservists, civilian staff, contractors, retirees, veterans, and military family members are stored at the centre.

The Pentagon has not detected any evidence that the leaked data has been misused. Military Times reported that affected individuals were offered identity restoration and credit history monitoring services.

A similar data breach previously occurred on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recruitment website, FBIJobs.gov. According to information obtained by ABC News from internal communications and sources, the FBI is considering the possibility that data belonging to its entire staff may have been stolen.

The New York Times (NYT) examined a portion of the stolen FBI records. Home addresses, telephone numbers, official email addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, hiring dates, and emergency contact details for relatives were identified within these documents.

The database also contained unit designations, duty roles, and information regarding the supervisors of personnel. Some records revealed assignments within counterintelligence and counternarcotics units, as well as departments examining threats originating from Russia, China, and Iran.

Ciaran Martin, the former head of the UK National Cyber Security Centre, noted that this type of breach could directly affect the FBI’s operational capabilities.

The hacker group known as ShinyHunters had announced that it had seized medical data and security clearance records alongside files belonging to tens of thousands of active and former FBI employees.

Experts evaluating the matter for the NYT warned that this information could be used to track agents, threaten their families, or compile dossiers by foreign intelligence services.

The ShinyHunters group initially threatened to release the data unless the bureau withdrew an advisory it had published concerning the group’s attack methods.

The group later asserted that it had never intended to leak the information and characterised its action as an advertising campaign.

In a report published in May, Reuters noted that the personal data of US military personnel had been used in surveillance and attack preparations.

According to the agency, Washington’s adversaries gained the ability to pinpoint areas where troops were concentrated by exploiting commercially available location data. US lawmakers at the time criticised the Pentagon for failing to adequately protect the personal data of military personnel.

America

Canada diversifies oil and gas exports away from US

Published

4 days ago

29/09/2026

Harici.com.tr

US President Donald Trump’s trade policy and the Washington administration’s push to increase Venezuelan oil imports are prompting Canada to diversify its energy exports.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, recent developments are accelerating Canada’s development of new oil and natural gas projects.

Steps taken by the Ottawa administration, which aspires to become an energy superpower, are seen as potentially strengthening the country’s position in global markets.

In Canada, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and fifth-largest natural gas producer, the energy sector accounts for approximately one-fifth of total exports.

Almost all of the country’s natural gas exports and approximately 90% of its oil exports go to the US.

The newspaper writes that the trade war with Washington and the atmosphere of confrontation entered into with Iran have heightened Canada’s desire to turn to alternative markets outside the US.

Officials plan to increase shipments of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to European and Asian markets.

Accelerating infrastructure investments in line with this target, Canada is also shortening approval processes. The government is prioritising the construction of an oil pipeline extending specifically to the west coast.

According to the newspaper’s estimate, if major pipeline projects are implemented, Canada’s daily oil transport capacity could rise to 6.8 million barrels by 2034.

Routes heading to the west coast will make up approximately 30% of this capacity.

The Canadian administration is simultaneously advancing LNG export projects. According to the report, these investments could allow approximately 55% of Canadian natural gas exports to be directed to markets outside the US by the early or mid-2030s.

While the government expands tax incentives for the oil and natural gas sector, the province of Alberta also plans to overhaul its royalty system.

However, the newspaper notes that implementing the new projects requires heavy investment, and the process depends on the final decisions taken by producers as well as the completion of regulatory approval processes.

The expansion of pipeline and LNG infrastructure could gradually reduce Canada’s dependence on the US market while raising its share in the global energy market.

The Canadian Prime Minister’s demand to reduce reliance on the US market had also come to the fore in July.

According to Carney’s statement, the province of Alberta submitted a plan for a pipeline spanning more than 1,000 kilometres to the west coast of British Columbia.

Targeted for completion by September 2027, the line will reach the Pacific coast by following an existing corridor through the mountainous terrain.

This shift in energy comes at a time of strained relations with the US. Donald Trump said that if Canada obtains associate member status in the European Union, he could halt trade with Europe in certain sectors and impose high tariffs.

As reported by the Associated Press, Trump characterised such a rapprochement as a “potentially hostile act”.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had proposed opening the path for Canada to become the EU’s first associate member. The terms of this associate membership status, which is not defined in EU treaties, are not yet clear and require the approval of member states to enter into force.

Canada, which does not seek full membership, aims for maximum rapprochement with the EU.

Following Trump’s return to the White House, relations between Washington and Ottawa deteriorated. The Trump administration, which repeatedly called on Canada to become the “51st state” of the US, introduced additional tariffs.

In July, the US began imposing 50% tariffs on certain Canadian-origin goods.