Trump's Tech Love Affair Won't Last

Let's enjoy it while we can?

Here we are, three days into the second Trump administration, and the president has already served up ample reminders of what his political reign is like: erratic, unpredictable, sporadically delightful, intrinsically authoritarian, often horrifying, and always a bit weird and confusing. We've yet to see much at all on the sex front (thank goodness), but with tech-related matters, all the typically Trumpian tendencies have been on full display.

Take last night's full and unconditional pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the creator of dark web drug marketplace Silk Road. Ulbricht was sentenced to two life sentences plus 40 years in federal prison for facilitating drug sales through the website. Such extreme punishment "should give pause even to supporters of the war on drugs," my colleague Jacob Sullum suggested.

And when it comes to ardent drug-war supporters, Donald Trump—who has, on numerous occasions, called for drug dealers to be executed—is way up there.

Except when he isn't. Somehow, the same man who has said drug dealers should get the death penalty has also, on numerous occasions, spoken out about the unfair and disproportionate nature of drug crime punishments. He oversaw sentencing reform and commuted the sentence of nonviolent drug offender Alice Johnson. And now, Trump has pardoned Ulbricht, whose Bitcoin- and Tor-driven marketplace undeniably enabled drug peddling and whose charges included narcotics trafficking, distribution of narcotics by means of the internet, and narcotics trafficking conspiracy.

Reminder No. 1: Trump's statements and actions are often contradictory.

Ultimately, Ulbricht's pardon seems to stem from a protracted campaign by libertarians and other supporters to both convince Trump of the injustice of Ulbricht's sentence and connect Ulbricht's plight to Trump's own. In announcing the pardon, Trump said that "the scum that worked to convict [Ulbricht] were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern-day weaponization of government against me."

It's great that Ulbricht is free (and that Trump kept his word), but I don't think Trump's decision here tells us anything about how Trump will treat drug crimes or digital marketplaces more generally.

Reminder No. 2: Trump's actions seem driven more by personal relationships and grievances than any underlying philosophy or deep conviction.

Which brings us to TikTok. Trump's recent attempts to save TikTok are a far cry from his actions during his first presidency, when Trump tried to effectively ban TikTok by executive order.

But let's back up. In case you forgot, the Supreme Court declined last Friday to stop the divest-or-ban law that Congress passed last year. TikTok briefly went dark.

Then President Trump declared that he would save TikTok… and also maybe nationalize it? As usual, no one is quite sure what he means.

On Truth Social, Trump seemed like he might be OK with ByteDance retaining partial control of the company so long as the U.S. government also got to retain partial ownership. ("Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose," he posted.) Then, in Oval Office comments to reporters, Trump again floated this "joint venture" idea but made it sound more like the U.S. would merely help broker ByteDance's sale of the company and take a cut of the sale money. He also suggested that the government could still play some undefined role in policing the app.

What does any of that really mean? No one knows! Perhaps Trump himself isn't quite sure. But what is clear is that this is a hallmark of Trump leadership: seemingly off-the-cuff comments that allude to elaborate plans that may or may not be constitutionally sound, may or may not be serious, and may or may not be ever mentioned again.

Reminder No. 3: Not even Trump has any real idea what he's talking about.

Then, on Monday, Trump issued another executive order telling the Department of Justice and state authorities not to enforce the law that would ban TikTok. So TikTok might come out of this OK—but that's a hell of an executive-overreaching way to ensure it.

Reminder No. 4: Trump tends to mix his pro-freedom concerns with authoritarian impulses.

The dizzying nature of Trump's political whims leaves little room for formulating expectations.

What will tech policy be like in the Trump era? I don't think anyone knows.

During his first presidency, Trump was a harsh critic of social media companies, including TikTok. His administration launched antitrust cases against Google and Facebook, which many Republicans saw as being in the tank for Democrats. And Trump frequently lambasted Section 230 of the Communications Act, which protects free speech on the internet by removing some of tech companies' liability for third-party speech.

Now, Trump partially owns a social media platform, Truth Social, and he's besties with Elon Musk, who runs X. Lo and behold, we've heard little about Section 230's flaws lately.

Now the Democrats oppose TikTok, and former President Joe Biden signed a law to force its sale or ban it. Trump responded by positioning himself as TikTok's champion.

Now, tech leaders—seemingly tired of trying and failing to appease Democrats—are trying to cozy up to Trump and Republicans. Musk, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew all attended Trump's inauguration.

Theoretically, this all portends a better tech policy climate under Trump 2.0. And in the immediate future, I think we'll see it. But to believe that it will last, one would have to forget everything we've learned about the erratic, opportunistic, and personality-driven nature of Trumpian politics.

How long until Trump and Musk quarrel and suddenly we're hearing from the White House about how we need to ban algorithms? How long until some Trump-mocking meme trends on TikTok and, you know what, TikTok is a communist propaganda tool after all?

Democrats undoubtedly played politics when it came to tech policy, placating and using tech companies when it suited their agenda and lashing out at them when populism building, crime-panic stoking, or censorship lust demanded it. Democrat-led tech policy was a roller coaster, but one you could see the general contours of, at least. Under Trump, we can expect a different sort of tech policy roller coaster, driven by the politics of personal alliances and grievances, and it's anyone's guess where it's going.

---

More Sex & Tech News

• Trade associations NetChoice and TechNet are suing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its director, Rohit Chopra, over what they call the agency's "attempted power grab over digital payments." The tech trade groups argue that the CFPB's recent rule regulating digital payment processors—think Venmo, Paypal, Cash App, Apple Pay, Google Wallet, etc.—exceeds its authority and violates the principle of separation of powers. The rule, finalized in November, says the CFPB can conduct "proactive examinations" of these companies to check their compliance with federal privacy and fraud laws.

"This is the second lawsuit related to the regulation," notes The Verge. "Google filed a lawsuit in December after the CFPB placed Google Payment Corp. under federal supervision. In a statement to The Verge, Google spokesperson José Castañeda called the rule 'a clear case of government overreach.'"

• Pregnancy surveillance? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont and the advocacy group Pregnancy Justice are suing the Vermont Department for Children and Families, alleging that it "relied on baseless allegations about a pregnant woman's mental health to secretly investigate her and win custody of her daughter before the baby was born," the Associated Press reports.

• South Dakota is advancing an age-verification law for adult websites.

• One of the many executive orders issued by Trump on his first day back in office seems unaware that intersex people exist.

Today's Image

D.C. | 2016 (ENB/Reason)

Comments

[Longtobefree]

The Horror

[tracerv]

I can see ENB as Capt Willard going down the Potomac in search of Col Donald Kurtz.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yup, and down river and out to sea is where she'd be.

[Don't look at me!]

TTTRRRUUUMMMPPPP!

[SQRLSY]

Really? Are you SURE? How do you know?

[Dillinger]

Four billionaires and a hooker show up at your door and say we're here to help ...

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Could we make that one billionaire and four hookers?

[Dillinger]

I recommend Night Shift if you have not seen it.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

ENB approves.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

So what if intersex people exist? How many? Why does such a teeny tiny little cohort get to tell everybody else to remember pronouns and let their kids be brainwashed?

If the only way intersex people can procreate is by brainwashing normies, then I say the hell with them. Keep your damned hands off or go to jail.

[mad.casual]

Technically, intersex people don't exist and ENB, if not choosing to fall on her own sword, should be run through by it.

Intersex animals can serve reproductively as both or either the male and female of the species and, frequently, self-fertilize.

No human has, nor strictly by natural biological means ever will, performed this feat. This is an underlying part of the 'gender is a spectrum' stupidity that the biologically-retarded need to ignore or refute. The chemicals that make girls into women young female mammals into mature female mammals render boys young male mammals sterile and vice versa, near (if not entirely) universally.

The only way it works or makes sense is if, when the magician shows you an empty hat, and then pulls a rabbit out of it, you just forget universal laws of several branches science that are centuries old, and assume that he's actually doing magic like a goddamned moron.

[JFree]

Intersex is very different from trans. The trans are the ones who emphasize pronouns about GENDER not sex, who are trying to invade women's sports, and all their post-modern horseshit.

Intersex are still considered an oddity and will always be so. Which also means they will likely become a victim if they speak too loudly. And YOU are exactly the sort of person who would beat them up if they speak up.

I see no problem at all with the default on govt forms being two sexes. For the same reason that govt forms shouldn't be in 50 different languages. It's a simple cost/efficiency issue. But making it a huge political issue - emphasizing the impossibility of creating 'exceptions' in processing forms - the expression of a bureaucrat-loving no-exceptions and FYTW wing of libertarianism - means YOU and your ilk are the fucking problem.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I am glad for you that you know so much about me.

[Your Therapist]

But come on man. You wear your bigotry like a billboard.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

a teeny tiny little cohort

Everybody is in a "teeny tiny little cohort" in one way or another. Meaning, that no one is completely "normal" and everyone has some trait, oddity, characteristic, fetish, belief, that would be considered "weird" and "out of the mainstream" to a large segment if not the majority of the population.

Such as, for example, being a libertarian.

So when you or others say "those weirdos should just shut up and get in line", you are saying that about yourself as well, and about everyone else.

[MWAocdoc]

"Trump tends to mix his pro-freedom concerns with authoritarian impulses."

Okay, I have to stop you there! The two things are not mutually exclusive. If an authoritarian government has been usurping legislative and judicial authority to unconstitutionally impose laws and regulations on The People for decades, it is certainly welcome news if a new authoritarian unilaterally withdraws the accumulated fruits of previous overreach. In other words, context matters!

[Thoritsu]

Well, when you have a conclusion and then start writing, things like this come out.

[Zipcreature]

“How long until some Trump-mocking meme trends on TikTok“
Never - The Left can’t meme and EVERYONE (including The Left) knows this.

TRRRUUUUMMPP!!!

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Like reddit, TikTok has never had anti trump content.

This could be the dumbest thing terrible Liz has ever written.

[VinniUSMC]

Thanks Bad Liz. Now, please fire most of your "assistant editors" and resign, and let real Libertarians take over.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

“erratic, unpredictable, sporadically delightful, intrinsically authoritarian , often horrifying, and always a bit weird and confusing”.

This is a perfect succinct description of Reason’s editorial stances the last 10 years

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

What about Tech's love affair with Trump?

[SQRLSY]

Twat about Trump's love affair with Trump?

(Now THAT shit is the REAL problem!)

[Longtobefree]

So that is what Zuck was staring at.

[SQRLSY]

Twat WAS Fuckerberg staring at, then, anyway?

Inquiring minds want to KNOW, damn-shit!!!!

[Don’t get eliminated]

The best thing about an ENB article is that I can stop reading after the first paragraph.

[Thoritsu]

Lizzy, you are at it again. You like most of what Trump is doing, but because he is bad (TDS), he must have stupid/bad motives for doing good. Why even write this? You swayed precisely no one.

You can do better. Yes, he is a dork. No, there was no better choice by 100x. Why not suggest actions for the new administration? Perhaps then someone will listen or be swayed. We all know Trump is will to pay for sex, at least when he was capable of it.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

And still, we are far better off having a President in control than the last 4 years with puppet in office while the actual control happened behind the curtains by the ruling elitists.

[TJJ2000]

The Authoritarian De-Regulator!!! /s
The Trump that did(N'T) ban TicTok!!! /s

The only-thing confusing about Trump is lefty-rag media's TDS-indoctrination trying SO HARD to invent a "BAD". Here's a starter you might consider. Maybe Trump isn't as "BAD" as you keep trying to make him out to be.

Because lets face it. The root motivation behind the "BAD" indoctrination is entirely admitted in the DNC platform ... "He hollowed out our public institutions!" (heaven-forbid/s)

[Nominalis]

It's kind of hard keeping Ulbricht behind bars when Biden's sleazebag, crackhead son has been completely sanitized.

[AT]

You seem really at war with yourself, ENB. Actually, a lot of folks here - both writers and readers - seem to be.

Look, let me break it down as an OG#NT. You don't have to like the man. You don't have to like his political party. You don't have to support him at the voting booth or in the polls. You are allowed to acknowledge when he does something right, good, beneficial, and better for the nation. You are also allowed to criticize when he does something wrong, dumb, destructive, and harmful to the nation. Doing either of these things is not an endorsement of a political party. He will do both, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a partisan kool-aid drinker.

It's not one or the other. Judge the deeds, not the man.

This will make you the enemy of MAGA and the Marxists alike - but, when you really get down to it, there's not a lot of difference between them in the first place. Policy, yea - absolutely. Governance, not so much. The Left's Marxism and the Right's Populism - they're both branches of the same collectivist tree. But that doesn't mean Trump can't show Individualist traits. And those should be nurtured, not rationalized under a desire to oppose him - him personally - on general principle.

Conservatives are now, like Libertarians have been for so long, just along for the ride. So, what skin is it off your back if you openly support or criticize what Trump does, so long as it's legitimate support/criticism, as opposed to partisan narrative?

Don't be a partisan shill. Give the man his due when he earns it - that's absolutely in keeping with Libertarian principles. And call him out when he doesn't. It will never be exclusively one or the other, no matter how many screeching karens have declared him an antichrist hitler authoritarian godking; no matter how terrified you are of falling out of favor with them.

Those people are fools. Don't be one of them.

[Your Therapist]

Thank you for the wisdom king kool-aid drinker.