By Tristen Fleig
Nearing the end of this tumultuous year, The New York Times reports a series of antitrust lawsuits against the big social media company Facebook:
When the Federal Trade Commission and more than 40 states sued Facebook on Wednesday for illegally killing competition and demanded that the company be split apart, lawmakers and public interest groups applauded.
While the fight for the 2020 presidency carries on, I have heard Libertarians and Libertarian adjacents claiming Trump’s biggest mistake was not pressuring big tech companies with antitrust litigation. Notably, figures like Ted Cruz and other supposedly liberty-minded conservatives have been advocating for antitrust litigation for quite a while.
Libertarians have had a mixed but principled tradition on antitrust legislation. They have principally argued that harmful monopolies do not form naturally for long and are caused by government intervention to cull competition. The topic of what to do when these harmful monopolies arise has no consensus.
What standard has antitrust legislation created?
Antitrust legislation as a broad category of laws meant to weed out “uncompetitive” business practices have been a black stain on American law. Essentially, the four major antitrust bills have regulated so many different business practices that all large corporations are technically illegal. In US law it is illegal to raise prices, maintain prices, or lower prices all at the same time. Why doesn’t every company get thrown charged then? That is perhaps the worst part of antitrust legislation no one knows what is illegal or legal until they sit down in the courtroom. Antitrust is simply a tool to punish companies you do not politically agree with.
So why are people advocating for Facebook getting charged with antitrust suits?
Conservatives and many libertarians believe that Facebook has been unfairly censoring right-wing media and manipulating public opinion in the ongoing culture war. They also believe by litigating facebook, alternatives like Parler or Gab will be able to compete. While it is true that Facebook and other tech giants have played a large part in the culture war, litigation will not go the way those pushing for litigation hope it will.
If Facebook is convicted and forced to break up, there will not suddenly be a resurgence of fair social media platforms. Things will get much worse in the culture war. Big tech companies have been able to resist government pressure on various issues so far, but once Facebook is convicted that will be no more. Facebook will essentially be in the pocket of government interests and only be emboldened to censor more.
Is it a typically Libertarian or conservative position to regulate business in the first place? If government intervention is preventing a free-market state, usually Libertarians advocate for removing government intervention, not punishing the company in question. I question if the case was about leftists getting censored, we would advocate for antitrust litigation.
Instead of advocating for symbolic government action, we should be advocating for our principles. Why are we turning a blind eye to the role government policy has played in creating an unfair social media landscape? The truth always prevails in the end and we can win this battle, but only by principled opposition and rational action. I will not endorse a legal standard that is subjectively applied and has been used to destroy outstanding companies like Alcoa and many more to come. If you consider yourself an advocate for capitalism and liberty, neither should you.