Concerns Over Tech Monopolies and Speech Freedom

There is growing frustration among global policymakers and consumers regarding the dominance of major tech companies. This overconsolidation isn’t just problematic for privacy and price; it also threatens innovation and, uniquely, freedom of speech.

During the Trump administration, anti-trust officials recognized this danger. Attorney General Gale Slater pointed out that when a few companies control information, it becomes alarmingly easy for individuals to be silenced. “Someone can disappear from the internet very easily,” he noted.

Many conservatives have become increasingly aware of how Big Tech can distort public discourse as a direct consequence of its market power. In a world dominated by such few players—namely Apple and Google—almost every American’s smartphone experience is shaped by them.

In response, Congress is starting to take action. Recently, two significant bills have been proposed, aiming to address the chokehold Apple and Google have on their App Stores. The Open App Markets Act, co-authored by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), alongside the App Store Freedom Act, led by Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), seeks to let users download apps from sources outside of Apple and Google’s platforms.

You might wonder: Why do these technicalities matter for free speech? Because the Gatekeeper power held by Apple and Google is already being misused to silence dissenting voices.

For instance, in 2021, Parler, a social media platform catering to the right, was removed from both Apple and Google App Stores due to allegations of “inadequate” content moderation—just as it was reported that the platform was being used to coordinate the January 6th Capitol riots. In no time, Parler went from one of the fastest-growing apps to virtually nonexistent. After a swift backlash from users, it couldn’t regain its earlier popularity.

But this wasn’t an isolated incident. A few years back, Google banned GAB, another platform focused on free speech, while Apple didn’t even allow it to launch. Additionally, Google refused at first to recognize President Trump’s Truth Social, questioning its moderation policies. Internationally, Apple has also caved to authoritarian pressures, removing apps that support rebels in China and Russia.

And the issue goes beyond censorship. Apple and Google are also dictating app developers’ designs and which voices get heard. Many developers aren’t allowed to share vital information with users, such as cheaper subscription options available outside the confines of Apple and Google’s control.

The scale of their influence is staggering. Nearly 91% of Americans own smartphones, with over 99% running on iOS or Android. Let’s not forget that 88% of the time spent on these devices is within apps, instead of browsers.

Given this bottleneck, it presents a significant risk—a single point of failure. It’s a situation ripe for exploitation by governments, activist groups, or any corporate entity looking to control narratives.

While some defend the status quo, arguing that it’s important for Apple and Google to filter potentially harmful content, a shift in ownership—like the transition of Twitter to Elon Musk’s control—has shown how easily these priorities can change. Before Musk’s acquisition, the companies pressured Twitter for increased moderation. Afterward, activists have called on Apple and Google to ban the platform unless stricter content protocols were reinstated.

An open app ecosystem benefits everyone. Conservatives who have recently turned against Big Tech should remember that these loyalties can shift quickly. And liberals concerned about the implications of “high-tech” regulation should advocate for safeguards that limit biased practices, no matter which party holds the reins.

Ultimately, digital freedom of speech shouldn’t hinge on the whims of Apple or Google executives. It’s imperative for Congress to act decisively to restore balance and ensure a diversity of voices. The Open App Markets Act and the App Store Freedom Act are tangible steps towards making that happen, and they should receive bipartisan support.