It’s rare to find agreement in American politics, but elements of the right and left seem to have found common ground on opposing tech. Both sides of the aisle are raging against data centers, Flock cameras, and the industry’s inadequate attention to child safety measures.
But this bipartisan push may not be all that great for the right. Many of these measures will deprive deep-red counties of revenue, hinder law enforcement, and empower liberal bureaucrats to censor the internet. Bipartisan support doesn’t always mean something is a great idea. Just look at the Iran War and the broad support for amnesty in the early 2010s. Anti-tech populism could do more harm to the right’s interests than people imagine.
Data centers are a major midterm issue. Both Republicans and Democrats are calling for moratoriums, with a few states passing restrictions on future construction. The sites are criticized for a variety of reasons. They can lower property values, cause noise pollution, and raise utility costs. They’re specifically attacked by the left for posing a threat to the environment. A number of Republicans, such as Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, feel attacking data centers provides a good way to build credentials with a national conservative audience. In spite of the suspicion with data centers, they can support another conservative goal: lowering property taxes. A number of counties profiting off data centers are slashing these despised taxes. DeSantis and other Republicans love to assail these obligations, but one way to reduce them is revenue from the data centers they want to ban.
Data center outrage is now joined by growing concerns over Flock cameras. These AI-powered license-plate readers are intended to help law enforcement solve crimes and not monitor petty traffic offenses. Police departments around the country have plenty of data to show how Flock has helped them nab criminals. But people fear that they could be abused by police and violate people’s privacy. It doesn’t help that Flock’s online backers are extremely sensitive about criticism. I was recently accused by people affiliated with Flock of being a possible foreign agent over a post merely saying why people would be worried about them.
You’ll find equal numbers of right-wingers and leftists deriding Flock cameras. Both see it as a case of encroaching Big Brother. But leftists have other reasons besides fears of authoritarian abuse and privacy concerns. They don’t like the cameras because they will help law enforcement, particularly ICE. Much of the hysteria over Flock centers on how they’ve been used to catch illegal aliens. The left doesn’t want police, whether local or federal, to have these tools. Unsurprisingly, the people responsible for the rash of Flock vandalism appear to be leftists, with a number filming themselves destroying the cameras in anti-police shirts.
What’s interesting is that the lawmakers most eager to ban them come from the far-right of the Republican Party. Some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress want them banned. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) warns that the cameras violate our constitutional rights, a view echoed by Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), and Thomas Massie (R-TN).
This push against Flock comes at a time when much of the right wants the state to arrest more illegal immigrants and native-born criminals. Flock could help with that goal, but that doesn’t appear to be a popular talking point on the right. Instead, it appears to be more popular to help the left’s goal of hindering immigration operations. Liberals are quite open about why they don’t like Flock. At the top of its list of problems with the cameras, the ACLU states: “ICE and CBP have repeatedly used Flock to go after immigrants without warrants.” Santa Cruz, California, and other cities around the country have cancelled their Flock contracts over worries the data will be used by immigration enforcement.
Conservatives can, of course, have different reasons for Flock suspicions. But eliminating license-plate readers may just end up making it harder for law enforcement to locate criminals and illegal aliens. Burchett and other conservative Republicans want more deportations. Their Flock bans would likely make that goal harder to achieve while doing little to minimize the surveillance state. We’d still have an abundance of traffic cameras and other invasive tech in our public spaces.
Congress is united in attempts to make the internet safer for kids. But this is another effort that would enable the left to achieve its policy goals at the right’s expense. The KIDS Act passed the House a few weeks ago with a solid majority. Nearly 270 lawmakers voted for it, while only 117 voted against. While the bill received majority support from both parties, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats did. Just 32 Republicans cast a vote against it.
The bill would impose age verification across much of the internet, push for more safety features and parental controls, and restrict AI bot interaction with children. Conservatives support the bill in part because it aims to restrict access to pornography, a long-time goal for the right. But the bill also offers a way for liberal bureaucrats to impose censorship.
The age-verification requirements would undermine online anonymity. Anonymity has proven a boon for right-wing speech online, as I document in my new book, Whitepill. Anons helped Trump win two elections and made the right embrace ideas once restricted to the fringe. Free speech on the internet is a gift for conservatives, but this bill may intimidate anons into abandoning the new public forum. Many would not trust giving their full names and home addresses to strangers at tech companies just to have the right to post. This is a clear invasion of privacy, one that could be argued is worse than license-plate readers. Yet that’s what the KIDS Act.
The bill also allows the government to censor speech. It demands tech platforms suppress content related to alcohol, gambling, drug use, and other vices that might be aimed at kids. It’s not hard to see this as opening a backdoor for liberal bureaucrats to demand censorship of “hate speech” that minors may interact with. If that’s deemed harmful to children, tech companies may decide to censor it just to avoid the hassle of dealing with government monitors. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, “When platforms are required to create and enforce content moderation policies that regulators can sue them over, they will often err on the side of deleting speech.”
Much of the public is leery of Big Tech. Conservatives have long held to this sentiment due to the industry’s insidious censorship practices. While it may be smart for politicians looking to be re-elected to appeal to this sentiment, it doesn’t do our side any favors when the measures passed hurt the right.
There isn’t much to gain from banning data centers except depriving many deep-red counties of desperately needed revenue and stymieing further technological advancement. Getting rid of Flock cameras may seem like a big win for privacy rights, but it would hinder our ability to deport illegal immigrants and arrest dangerous criminals. It’s a good idea to make the internet a safer place for kids, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of free speech.
The left has nothing to worry about with these measures. They’ll achieve their goals without any downsides. But it’s a completely different story for conservatives. They’ll end up hurting their own interests with little in return.
There are undoubtedly anti-tech sentiments on both sides of the aisle. But the current focus of anti-tech populism redirects these sentiments toward left-wing ends.
Just because something seems popular doesn’t make it right.
Read the full article here
