Right here we’re, 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 pleasant, intrinsically authoritarian, usually horrifying, and at all times a bit bizarre and complicated. We have but to see a lot in any respect on the intercourse entrance (thank goodness), however with tech-related issues, all of the usually Trumpian tendencies have been on full show.
You might be studying Intercourse & Tech, the publication from Elizabeth Nolan Brown on intercourse, expertise, bodily autonomy, legislation, and on-line tradition. Need extra on intercourse, expertise, and the legislation? Subscribe to Intercourse & Tech. It is free and you’ll unsubscribe any time.
Take final night time’s full and unconditional pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the creator of darkish net drug market Silk Highway. Ulbricht was sentenced to 2 life sentences plus 40 years in federal jail for facilitating drug gross sales by means of the web site. Such excessive punishment “ought to give pause even to supporters of the battle on medicine,” my colleague Jacob Sullum steered.
And with regards to ardent drug-war supporters, Donald Trump—who has, on quite a few events, referred to as for drug sellers to be executed—is means up there.
Besides when he is not. In some way, the identical man who has mentioned drug sellers ought to get the dying penalty has additionally, on quite a few events, spoken out concerning 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 market undeniably enabled drug peddling and whose expenses included narcotics trafficking, distribution of narcotics via the web, and narcotics trafficking conspiracy.
Reminder No. 1: Trump’s statements and actions are sometimes contradictory.
In the end, Ulbricht’s pardon appears to stem from a protracted marketing campaign by libertarians and different supporters to each persuade Trump of the injustice of Ulbricht’s sentence and join Ulbricht’s plight to Trump’s personal. In asserting the pardon, Trump mentioned that “the scum that labored to convict [Ulbricht] had been among the identical lunatics who had been concerned within the modern-day weaponization of presidency towards me.”
It is nice that Ulbricht is free (and that Trump stored his phrase), however I do not assume Trump’s determination right here tells us something about how Trump will deal with drug crimes or digital marketplaces extra usually.
Reminder No. 2: Trump’s actions appear pushed extra by private relationships and grievances than any underlying philosophy or deep conviction.
Which brings us to TikTok. Trump’s latest makes an attempt to avoid wasting TikTok are a far cry from his actions throughout his first presidency, when Trump tried to successfully ban TikTok by government order.
However let’s again up. In case you forgot, the Supreme Court docket declined final Friday to cease the divest-or-ban legislation that Congress handed final yr. TikTok briefly went darkish.
Then President Trump declared that he would save TikTok… and in addition perhaps nationalize it? As common, nobody is kind of certain what he means.
On Fact Social, Trump appeared like he may be OK with ByteDance retaining partial management of the corporate as long as the U.S. authorities additionally obtained to retain partial possession. (“Due to this fact, my preliminary thought is a three way partnership between the present house owners and/or new house owners whereby the U.S. will get a 50% possession in a three way partnership arrange between the U.S. and whichever buy we so select,” he posted.) Then, in Oval Workplace feedback to reporters, Trump once more floated this “three way partnership” thought however made it sound extra just like the U.S. would merely assist dealer ByteDance’s sale of the corporate and take a lower of the sale cash. He additionally steered that the federal government might nonetheless play some undefined position in policing the app.
What does any of that basically imply? Nobody is aware of! Maybe Trump himself is not fairly certain. However what is obvious is that this can be a hallmark of Trump management: seemingly off-the-cuff feedback that allude to elaborate plans which will or will not be constitutionally sound, might or will not be critical, and will or will not be ever talked about once more.
Reminder No. 3: Not even Trump has any actual thought what he is speaking about.
Then, on Monday, Trump issued one other government order telling the Division of Justice and state authorities to not implement the legislation that might ban TikTok. So TikTok would possibly come out of this OK—however that is a hell of an executive-overreaching means to make sure it.
Reminder No. 4: Trump tends to combine his pro-freedom issues with authoritarian impulses.
The dizzying nature of Trump’s political whims leaves little room for formulating expectations.
What is going to tech coverage be like within the Trump period? I do not assume anybody is aware of.
Throughout his first presidency, Trump was a harsh critic of social media firms, together with TikTok. His administration launched antitrust circumstances towards Google and Fb, which many Republicans noticed as being within the tank for Democrats. And Trump regularly lambasted Part 230 of the Communications Act, which protects free speech on the web by eradicating a few of tech firms’ legal responsibility for third-party speech.
Now, Trump partially owns a social media platform, Fact Social, and he is besties with Elon Musk, who runs X. Lo and behold, we have heard little about Part 230’s flaws these days.
Now the Democrats oppose TikTok, and former President Joe Biden signed a legislation to drive its sale or ban it. Trump responded by positioning himself as TikTok’s champion.
Now, tech leaders—seemingly uninterested in making an attempt and failing to appease Democrats—try to cozy as much as 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 greater tech coverage local weather underneath Trump 2.0. And within the fast future, I feel we’ll see it. However to consider that it’ll final, one must overlook the whole lot we have realized concerning the erratic, opportunistic, and personality-driven nature of Trumpian politics.
How lengthy till Trump and Musk quarrel and immediately we’re listening to from the White Home about how we have to ban algorithms? How lengthy till some Trump-mocking meme developments on TikTok and, what, TikTok is a communist propaganda device in any case?
Democrats undoubtedly performed politics when it got here to tech coverage, placating and utilizing tech firms when it suited their agenda and lashing out at them when populism constructing, crime-panic stoking, or censorship lust demanded it. Democrat-led tech coverage was a curler coaster, however one you might see the final contours of, no less than. Beneath Trump, we will anticipate a distinct type of tech coverage curler coaster, pushed by the politics of private alliances and grievances, and it is anybody’s guess the place it is going.
Extra Intercourse & Tech Information
• Commerce associations NetChoice and TechNet are suing the Shopper Monetary Safety Bureau (CFPB) and its director, Rohit Chopra, over what they name the company’s “tried energy seize over digital funds.” The tech commerce teams argue that the CFPB’s latest rule regulating digital fee processors—assume Venmo, Paypal, Money App, Apple Pay, Google Pockets, and so forth.—exceeds its authority and violates the precept of separation of powers. The rule, finalized in November, says the CFPB can conduct “proactive examinations” of those firms to examine their compliance with federal privateness and fraud legal guidelines.
“That is the second lawsuit associated to the regulation,” notes The Verge. “Google filed a lawsuit in December after the CFPB positioned Google Fee Corp. underneath federal supervision. In a press release to The Verge, Google spokesperson José Castañeda referred to as the rule ‘a transparent case of presidency overreach.'”
• Being pregnant surveillance? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont and the advocacy group Being pregnant Justice are suing the Vermont Division for Kids and Households, alleging that it “relied on baseless allegations a few pregnant girl’s psychological well being to secretly examine her and win custody of her daughter earlier than the child was born,” the Related Press studies.
• South Dakota is advancing an age-verification legislation for grownup web sites.
• One of many many government orders issued by Trump on his first day again in workplace appears unaware that intersex folks exist.
At the moment’s Picture
