Connect with us

America

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

Published

on

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

1 day ago

on

10/09/2026

By

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

2 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

2 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey