Technology

Major Anti-Tech Antitrust Package in Congress Moves Forward

Taken together, these six measures would have a major impact on the way we shop, chat, and otherwise go about our business online.

|

A bundle of new antitrust bills in Congress takes aim at the intersection of free markets and the internet. Taken together, these six measures would have a major impact on the way we shop, chat, entertain ourselves, and otherwise go about our business online.

Say goodbye to Amazon Prime Video, for example. And to low-priced Amazon brand products. And to phones coming pre-loaded with things like weather, calendar, and email apps—even pre-installing phones with an app store app to help users easily acquire these things could be banned. As would Google searches showing Google Shopping or YouTube videos results up top, or Facebook prominently displaying its Marketplace. And forget integration between services now easily linked, like Gmail and Google Calendar, Facebook and Instagram, or LinkedIn and Microsoft Office.

In fact, today's major tech companies would be forced to downplay—or ditch entirely—a lot of their popular (and free) services, since large platforms promoting their own tools or products over those over of competitors would be off-limits, as would controlling any line of business that could be considered a "conflict of interest." The result for consumers would likely be less convenience, fewer options, higher prices, or all of the above.

Meanwhile, expect social media, phone apps, and all sorts of digital services to get less secure and more glitchy, as platforms attempt to comply with mandatory interoperability and openness rules. And expect fewer startup ideas to ever make it to the masses, as the rules around acquisitions are tightened.

Amazingly, U.S. lawmakers are touting these proposals in the name of helping tech users. But their solutions seem more aligned with punishing disfavored companies (or wringing more money from them) than actually promoting consumer interests.

"Congress is unhappy with technology companies, but their frustration is political," said Jake Ward, president of the Connected Commerce Council (3C)—a nonprofit membership association for small businesses—in a statement. "The far wings of both parties believe the other party is weaponizing Big Tech, so their response is to weaponize antitrust law. But antitrust law is not a political tool for Congress to wield on a whim."

Ward is far from alone in seeing these measures—most introduced just a little over two weeks ago, and all approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week—as more concerned with politics than traditional antitrust goals, such as protecting consumer welfare and preventing abusive monopolies.

"This is not traditional antitrust law," former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair William E. Kovacic told Politico about the legislation. "This is a broader concept of competition policy that borrows some antitrust concepts, but relies on a broader notion on what behavior for individual firms is inappropriate."

Instead of one set of rules that businesses (regardless of sector or size) must follow, they would create rules that apply solely to large digital platforms, taking aim at the tech giants that are currently culture-war pingpong fodder for politicians. Most of the new rules would apply only to "covered platforms," defined as those with at least 500,000 U.S.-based active monthly users or at least 100,000 U.S.-based active business users, net annual sales or market capitalization greater than $600 billion, and deemed a "critical trade partner for the sale or provision of any product or service offered on or directly related to the online platform." Once deemed a covered platform, the designation would last 10 years.

But while tailor-made to punish companies such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google, it's less clear what consumers would get out of the new arrangements.

"Two proposals from Rep. David Cicilline and Rep. Pramila Jayapal inexplicably target a whole host of tech conveniences that save people time and money and put tech to work for people," writes Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the tech industry coalition Chamber of Progress, in a rundown of popular services these bills could interfere with or ban.

Another of the proposals—the Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act, designed to increase data portability and interface interoperability—could give people somewhat more control over their digital data. But it also raises "substantial concerns" about security vulnerabilities, said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.) during debate about the bill.

These measures could also be harmful to small businesses. The 3C has collected signatures from more than 7,000 small-business owners, staff, and customers calling on Congress not to pass these bills. "We understand there are headlines to be made by attacking large companies, but during the pandemic Google, Amazon and other American technology leaders helped small businesses survive," they say. "Research shows millions of businesses would have closed if they did not have access to digital services and online marketplaces."

Google has also emphasized the impact that the proposals would have on their individual and business users. "We are not opposed to antitrust scrutiny or updated regulations on specific issues. But American consumers and small businesses would be shocked at how these bills would break many of their favorite services," said Mark Isakowitz, the company's vice president of government affairs and public policy, in a statement.

Others worry about the macro effects that these proposals could have on competition, innovation, and free speech.

The bills "ignore the procompetitive effects of digital platforms extending into each other's markets and competing with each other there, in ways that often lead to far more intense competition—and better outcomes for consumers—than if the only firms that could compete with the incumbent platform were small startups," notes Sam Bowman, director of competition policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, a nonprofit and nonpartisan research center based in Portland, Oregon.

Many of the proposals also seek "to make digital platforms into narrow conduits for other firms to operate on, ignoring the value created by platforms curating their own services by, for example, creating quality controls on entry (as Apple does on its App Store) or by integrating their services with related products (like, say, Google adding events from Gmail to users' Google Calendars)," Bowman writes.

Berin Szóka of the tech-focused think tank TechFreedom suggested that the measures would speed along the FTC's evolution "from being an apolitical law enforcement agency into a political football." (See Szóka's Twitter thread for some play-by-play of the judiciary committee markup of the bills.)

The new legislation is sponsored largely by Democrats but has attracted some Republican supporters. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed all six of the measures out of committee, setting them up for a vote by the full House.

Below is a very brief rundown of each of the six measures.

The American Choice and Innovation Online Act (H.R. 3816)
Sponsor: Rep. David Cicilline (D–R.I.)
Co-sponsors: Nine Democrats and five Republicans
Main thrust: Stopping Big Tech platforms from giving any preference to their own products, services, or sites. The measure would also prohibit covered platforms from doing anything that "excludes or disadvantages the products, services, or lines of business of another business relative to the covered platform operator's own products, services, or lines of business;" ban them from restricting "dependent businesses" access to software, tools, or user data on different terms from the platforms' own business lines; ban them from preventing users from uninstalling apps that are preinstalled; and establish a Bureau of Digital Markets within the FTC.

The Ending Platform Monopolies Act (H.R. 3825)
Sponsor: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.)
Co-Sponsors: Seven Democrats and five Republicans
Main thrust: Stopping Big Tech companies from operating in multiple realms and letting the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the FTC sue those that do. Under this measure, covered platforms would be banned from controlling any line of business deemed a conflict of interest or line of business that creates a "substantial incentive" to self-preference.

The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act (3826)
Sponsor: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.)
Co-Sponsors: Nine Democrats and four Republicans
Main thrust:
Preventing many—perhaps almost all—new acquisitions by Big Tech companies. A covered platform would only be allowed to acquire another company if it could provide "clear and convincing evidence" that said company doesn't compete with any part of the platform's existing business lines, pose any potential competitive threat, or stand to enhance the platform's market position in any way.

The ACCESS Act (H.R. 3849) 
Sponsor: Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D–Pa.)
Co-Sponsors: 10 Democrats and seven Republicans
Main thrust: Mandatory openness. The ACCESS Act would give the federal government the power to sue covered platforms that don't follow new interface interoperability and data-portability rules set by the FTC.

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 3843)
Sponsor: Rep. Joe Neguse (D–Colo.)
Co-sponsors: 13 Democrats and eight Republicans
Main thrust: Appropriating more money for antitrust enforcement—$252 million to the DOJ's antitrust division and $418 million to the FTC—and raising fees for high-value mergers of all sorts (not just tech). Similar to a bill in the Senate from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) that passed recently as part of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. The House version would lower fees for smaller value mergers, but only marginally (from $280,000 to $250,000 for some, from $125,000 to $100,000 for some, and $45,000 to $30,000 at the lowest level). Meanwhile, those involved in larger mergers—for which fees are now capped at $280,000—would see fees up to $2.25 million. "Antitrust enforcement and litigation is hugely expensive and time consuming," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) in a statement, noting that the two cases the feds filed last year against Facebook and Google "may take years to litigate." This bill would help fund such enforcement, he explained.

The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act (H.R. 3460) 
Sponsor: Rep. Ken Buck (R–Colo.)
Co-sponsors: Eight Republicans and two Democrats
Main thrust: Making antitrust cases easier on state attorneys general by disallowing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to change a case's venue from one district court to another after it is filed or consolidating it with private antitrust claims. (Defendants could still seek a change in venue.)

NEXT: Clarence Thomas Blasts the ‘Contradictory and Unstable’ Federal Marijuana Ban

Technology Antitrust Free Markets Regulation Congress Internet Social Media Amazon Apple Google Facebook Business and Industry

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

62 responses to “Major Anti-Tech Antitrust Package in Congress Moves Forward

    1. Interesting, thanks. Have to check him out on Rogan.

      1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular FF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

  1. TLDR
    Whatever they do, it will be the wrong thing.

    1. TLDR? OK then SHORT summary for YOU!

      From the article:
      “But their solutions seem more aligned with punishing disfavored companies (or wringing more money from them) than actually promoting consumer interests.”

      Translation: Just like conservaturd commenters here (and in trying to appease them), Congress has a YUUUUGE “punishment boner”! We don’t care about a good life (conveniences) for consumers, we care about PUNISHING our political “enemies”!

      Oh, and, of course, Congress-slimes want more bribes, ooops, I mean, campaign contributions. No surprise there…

      1. “But their solutions seem more aligned with punishing disfavored companies (or wringing more money from them) than actually promoting consumer interests.”

        If only their were some way for consumers to effectively self-advocate in a court of law.

        But, alas, it has all already been sagely decided from the top idiots on down;

        the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

        “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

  2. Your phone won’t come bundled with spamware? That’s supposed to be a negative of the bill? Sometimes Reason writers really like to advertise how out of touch they are.

    That said. I have no strong feelings about this bill, as I cannot trust the summary this website is providing.

    1. Nor should you. Reason has proven itself untrustworthy.
      Facebook is spending millions on a National ad campaign to beg for regulation. They will be enshrined as the oligarchs of information by their partner political wing.

    2. Why are you here, then?

      1. It’s pretty obvious most of us come here for the comments because we’ve been around a lot longer than you and your socks. The writing used to be good but the magazine is too full of spineless cunts now to publish much good. You know it’s bad when the best articles are from people not on the main staff and Nancy rommelman would win their journalist of the year prize and wasn’t even really employed by them.

  3. ENB’s Reason is perfectly fine with the DNC having direct input into banning and deplatforming their enemies and censoring political content. That is textbook Fascism. There is no one less credible on this subject anywhere than ENB and Reason.

  4. Probably going to be a big grift and rife with abuse, but the american people have just cause to be frightened by the idea of major corporations stripping them of their ability to communicate freely and deliberately aiding the government in their surveillance state. Hope they all get broken on the rack.

  5. *The American Choice and Innovation Online Act (H.R. 3816)
    Seems like (a) the equivalent goal of so-called net neutrality, and frankly, if there were multiple platforms, I’d favor one that followed these rules. But putting the government in charge of enforcing it si guaranteed to go bad.

    *The Ending Platform Monopolies Act (H.R. 3825)
    Looks like yer typical “I knows it when I sees it” full empliyment-for-prosecutors definition of monopoly. Absolutely unnecessary even in the bloated klepto-crony markets we have now.

    *The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act (3826)
    Redundant with HR 3825.

    *The ACCESS Act (H.R. 3849)
    Government hasn’t a clue what this means, and any attenpted government enforcement is only going to sum things up sideways.

    *The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 3843)
    Just yer ordinary tax grab.

    *The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act (H.R. 3460)
    Stack the odds in the government’s favor more than it already is.

  6. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are?

    1. One fewer than your question.

    2. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

  7. “The ACCESS Act (H.R. 3849)

    Main thrust: Mandatory openness. The ACCESS Act would give the federal government the power to sue covered platforms that don’t follow new interface interoperability and data-portability rules set by the FTC.”

    This one might be a good thing–on a common carrier basis. The logic behind it has a long tradition in common law. It makes sense.

    This entry about common carriers from Investopedia, for instance, applies the concept to natural monopolies–everything from railroads to utilities.

    “Common carriers are typically required to allow open access to their services without restricting supply or discriminating among customers and in return are allowed to operate as monopolies and given protection from liability for potential misuse by customers.

    —-Investopedia, “Natural Monopoly”

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp

    This should mean that when you leave Facebook, you can take your contacts with you–which I suspect is the main non-psychological barrier to exiting on Facebook. People don’t leave because they’re afraid they’ll lose contacts.

    Maybe AT&T shouldn’t limit your phone calls to only other customers on AT&T. Maybe you should be able to have T-Mobile contacts in your phone and maybe T-Mobile customers should be able to call you without buying a plan from AT&T.

    The part that sucks about this proposed law is the part about giving the FTC new power to set the rules. Suffice it to say, unaccountable bureaucrats making choices on our behalf is not the solution to our problems. Of course, elitists inflicting their choices on us, with average people not being able to do anything about it, is the whole purpose of progressivism, so we shouldn’t have expected anything better from the Democrats in the House.

    1. As a never facebooker, how would one say take their friends list (contacts?) and make them work using LinkedIn?

      1. There are all sorts of migration utilities that various companies make to, say, migrate your email and contacts from an old PC to a new PC or to synch your new phone with your old phone’s information on Apple’s server after your old phone was lost or stolen–so you can restore your messages and contacts.

        From faulty memory, one of the reasons Facebook emerged victorious over MySpace wasn’t just because MySpace’s features were a constantly broken mess. The one thing that worked well was a MySpace feature that let you contact people on MySpace to tell them about your presence on other platforms.

        Hey, let’s make it easy for our competitors’ platforms to communicate with our users. That way, they won’t need to leave MySpace to see all that great content from our competitors! You could embed YouTube videos on your MySpace page. What could go wrong?

        How ’bout DOOM? They were handing the keys to the castle to their competitors.

        If they’re trying to make it so you can take your contacts with you when you leave Facebook for WeMe, or someone else, that might actually eliminate a barrier to exit. People will still be psychologically put off by the thought of doing something new and putting in the extra effort, but this might at least make it possible for most users to exit Facebook with their online presence reasonably intact.

    2. A minor technical problem. The true barrier to leaving Facebook is that everyone else you know is on there: the network effect.

      Facebook can’t maintain that forever. It’s already uncool among younger people to be on their parents’ social site. And Facebook is annoying in many ways.

      1. The true barrier to leaving Facebook is that everyone else you know is on there: the network effect.

        This is untrue and a is a one-sided misunderstanding. Not only are relatively fewer people on FB but, more critically, if I have 1,000 followers and switch to LinkedIn, I lose 1,000 followers. If I’m able to take my contacts with me to LinkedIn, I still have 1,000 followers, they’re just on FB.

  8. Meh don’t care if it breaks up big tech’s power fine by me. They are not beholden or loyal to the US so they can just sue in court if they don’t like it.

  9. Also, now that we’re acknowledging that Congress generally, and the Democratic party specifically, is targeting social media companies in various ways, I think it’s time to drop the whole ‘but this is about free speech, private property, and association rights’ spiel. Those things remain important topics in their own right, but they simply don’t apply in this situation.

    When Facebook is under threat of being broken up by an antitrust suit from the FTC, having their platform opened up to all comers by Congress, having big restrictions put on their ability to make future acquisitions, and the justification for doing this (according to the article) has little to do with antitrust, their monopoly status, or predatory pricing–and a lot to do with political considerations? It’s high time to stop talking about this in terms of free speech, private property, and association rights.

    Facebook deplatforming people and banning political speech about the origin of covid-19 and Hunter Biden–because they’re afraid of what the government will do to their company if they don’t–may be the worst real world example of Facebook exercising their free speech, private property, and association rights possible.

    When an armed robber holds a gun to the head of a cashier, the cashier isn’t exercising her association rights when she hands him all the money in the cash register.

    1. Support a political party that goes after the robber and not the cashier. If only one existed that won elections.

      1. I’d love to see legislation that would allow suing government employees or representatives personally for each and every threat against the Bill of Rights. Threaten to regulate the printing press (modern day social media) like Diane Feinstein did – then she can personally be sued for violating her oath of office and making threats against Facebooks rights.

        1. The barrier isn’t the law. It’s what’s in the minds of the people who voted for politicians like Feinstein. We can kick anybody out of office for any reason we want. We’re given that opportunity every few years. The totalitarians are right about ideology being a key route to change. They’re just wrong about the ideology they want to instill and using the coercive power of government to effectuate those changes. Changing people’s hearts and minds should be the mission of all libertarians. It’s a pain in the ass and it takes a long time, but it’s also the only effective means to change. Once we’ve changed enough people’s hearts and minds, politicians like Dianne Feinstein won’t matter anymore. They won’t be able to get any traction.

    2. Also, now that we’re acknowledging that Congress generally, and the Democratic party specifically, is targeting social media companies in various ways, I think it’s time to drop the whole ‘but this is about free speech, private property, and association rights’ spiel. Those things remain important topics in their own right, but they simply don’t apply in this situation.

      Some of us were trying to get them to drop the “this is about free speech” spiel back when (and before) they were claiming that S230 was the 1A of the internet.

  10. “The result for consumers would likely be less convenience, fewer options, higher prices, or all of the above.”

    It takes a lot of gall for a LIBERTARIAN rag to argue against a more free market.

    How do you know it’d be worse? I think there could be a lot of apps that could come about that would eat facebook, amazon, etc. lunch. But hey- it wouldn’t be reason without the worst kind of argument that pays absolutely no attention to libertarian ideals.

    1. Didn’t you know Reason cares about three things…abortion, open borders, and sucking up to NYC woke liberal elites who run the NYT, WAPO and of course Big “Tech”….look where their writers live…NYC and DC..says it all…..need some Ron Paul Libertarians running Reason…would do ENB good..

      1. Nothing will do her good except getting mugged in whichever shit hole she lives. ENB simply is trying to pick up the shika screeching job because the male writers at reason aren’t cunty enough by themselves.

  11. Nine bills – eight of them introduced by critters who are lawyers.
    Introduced into Congress and passed out of committee in two weeks.
    All significantly bipartisan

    This is extortion not legislation. I really don’t give a damn about the targets here – fuck them all. But the process smells. Government of by and for the lawyers. And reinforces the idea of sortition rather than elections

  12. The woke execs (all NYC far left ivey league types for the most part who parlayed their friends, relatives, tribe in getter sweet gigs at Google, FB, Twitter) should just open their damn platforms up for free speech and they would at least have the GOP supporting them against these grifter bills. But they can’t…just like even when faced with facts they can’t help themselves…which is why the GOP should never do anything to expand the public sector…ever…

  13. Oh! Lookie there Republicans; that wanted to push Anti-Tech bills in the name of *forcing* freedom-of-speech on private property.

    We now have Nazi-bills written ENTIRELY by Democrats all of which essentially says [WE] Nazi’s (National Socialists) own/manage everything the Big Tech industry does, who its customers are, what they can do; not you people that *created* the Big Tech industry!

    Now who could’ve seen that coming???

    We now have a bipartisan effort to hand the most popular communication medium of the 21st Century over the ‘Feds’ and their Nazi Governing methods. Just LIKE education went, just like healthcare went, just like housing went, just like energy went, etc, etc, etc….

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Boycott the ever-growing Nazi Government by not supporting it’s Gov-Guns where they don’t belong.

    1. It’s Republicans’ fault the Democrats and social media colluded to overthrow an election and silence all dissenters, destroying any good will or trust we the people have in such entities. Those darn Republicans fouled us again!

      1. Not at all!! But the Republican push to throw Nazi Government into communication industry (freedom of the press) are just throwing gas on the flames.

  14. You will note that none of these bills do anything to stop big tech from censoring conservative speech.
    That is the biggest problem facing tech consumers today.

    1. They will have a positive effect. By making these companies smaller, competitors, including those who will push non-censorship, will have more room to grow. Currently they can dominated by these big tech companies.

      1. dominated by choice/free-will… Get off Facebook; problem solved.

        1. Monopolies are not free market. They need to broken up.

          Monopolies did not get where they are without big gov helping them out. Amazon was fueled into their dominance by government favor, they competed on NO sales tax while mom and pops continued to have to pay theirs, for years! Years of unfair “competition” gained from government favor.

          1. So the solution to Nazi governing is MORE Nazi governing???
            UR absolutely correct; but inviting more wolves to watch the sheep isn’t going to fix the slaughter.

            If there is to be any progress in this nation it has to come from the ‘root’ of the problem. END the ever-growing National Socialist Take-Over (Nazi) Government don’t expand it’s powers.

        2. Get off Facebook; problem solved.

          Get off;
          Facebook
          Youtube
          Gmail
          Android
          Patreon
          Twitter
          Netflix
          Disney
          Hollywood
          Late Night TV
          Televised News

          More cogently, get yourself **and all your friends and contacts** off of;
          Facebook
          Youtube
          Gmail
          Android
          Patreon
          Twitter
          Netflix
          Disney
          Hollywood
          Late Night TV
          Televised News

          Everyone should just switch to Apple and then all of our government/media monopoly/manipulation issues will be solved!

          1. That fact is; If you don’t like how free enterprise is treating you — *CREATE* the enterprise that will…….. Don’t run around toting Gov-Guns pretending like you’re inherently entitled to what someone else owns. That is the belief that is destroying this nation.

  15. Interesting, thanks for sharing 🙂

  16. As I see it, this is just the beginning of the government’s attempt to, basically, gain as much control of the internet as possible. Period. And government control is never a good thing, no matter who sits in the White House.

  17. We need to quit the whining. Monopolies are terrible even for us libertarians. Big tech is out of control and is now exerting never heard of before control over the lives of Americans. Breaking them up creates MORE competition at the “component” level they are broken up into, which is good for business, good for Americans, and good for freedom.

    Being libertarian doesn’t mean we should support stifling monopolies!

    1. Or, alternatively: “Governments are terrible for us libertarians. Big government is out of control and is now exerting never heard of before control over the lives of Americans. Breaking up government agency control creates MORE competition, which is good for business, good for Americans, and good for freedom.”

      1. “Breaking up government agency control”
        ^^THIS; Well said – The only pure monopolies are upheld by Gov-Guns.

      2. Sounds good. Break up the government and the innovation stifling monopolies called google, facebook, and amazon!

        1. Remember when Google, Facebook and Amazon pointed their Corp-Guns and forced people to use their service?? Ya; me neither.

          Solution to “stifling monopolies” — MORE competition, NOT more government *power*.

          LESS government; shorten copyright and patient lengths, STOP crony socialism, ARREST the Democratic Politicians who used their authority to supposedly “request” the companies censor citizens (A clear abridgement of speech by ‘Feds’ and UN-Constitutional.)

          This is that area where Republicans screw-up over and over and over again. Dismissing Individual Liberty and Justice for a delusion that the wolves are going to fix themselves.

  18. This sounds like a bad decision for now. Might hurt tech companies like Amazon

  19. I didn’t realize until I heard the little chime, but Amazon devices (and I’m sure google and apple too) are recording EVERYTHING said in your home. How can anyone think that is going to end well?

    1. Such blatant violations should be dragged through the justice system. Call your local prosecutor if you have enough evidence.

  20. Meanwhile, expect social media, phone apps, and all sorts of digital services to get less secure and more glitchy, as platforms attempt to comply with mandatory interoperability and openness rules. And expect fewer startup ideas to ever make it to the masses, as the rules around acquisitions are tightened.

    I am reliably informed that The Free Market is the perfect mechanism for solving these problems.

    1. ^^THIS…

      And along with all those “comply with mandatory interoperability” will come a Gov-Gun enforced monopolies that will make the current issue seem like nothing.

      Of which the current situation is most likely a ‘resulting’ problem of…

      There’s no problem that the Nazi-Gov can’t make WORSE!

      The Proof to that is in the history. Gov-Mortgage = Great Recession. Gov-Healthcare = UN-affordable Healthcare. Gov-Land management = UN-affordable land and pinched resources.

      1. EVERYTHING; and I mean EVERYTHING that sucks in people’s lives is the end result of Gov-Guns…

        – Does anyone really think houses would price-tag at 1/2-Million if Gov freebies weren’t legislated.
        – Does anyone really think Commie-Indoctrination would be an issue if the Gov hadn’t setup up ‘Education’ camps.
        – Does anyone really think our towns would be getting torn apart if it wasn’t for racist privilege legislated.
        – Does anyone really think the USA would be borderline bankrupt without Gov-Spending.
        – Does anything think China Manufacturing would be kicking our butts without Gov legislation control of energy and resources.
        – Does anyone think that land would cost $50K+ if Gov hadn’t STOLE massive amounts from the states (86% of NV)?

        1. And those are just a very very few examples. Healthcare is 10x more Nazified. And lets not forget The Federal Reserve Act = The Great Depression. The U.S. Constitution was written for a REASON…

  21. Super. A bunch of elected hacks who can’t even set up their own email are getting busy to change how we check ours. The same dopes that can’t figure out how to insert an image into an email are going to tell us that we can or can’t do that with own

  22. Yeah Google has improved their search interface and now everything is shown instantly. Even the app developers are working on different things and releasing improved apps like applinked

Comments are closed.