Podcast: What did those Big Tech hearings have to do with religious life in America?

There have been some wild clashes between religious groups and the czars of the Big Tech institutions that have tremendous power in American public discourse. Certainly there have been more important skirmishes than Twitter shutting down that inspirational Tim Tebow mini-sermon the other day.

Many of my friends — as an Orthodox Christian layman — started paying close attention to this issue back in 2015 when a strategic set of cyber-lords informed these believers’ priests, all of a sudden, that they couldn’t put “Father” in front of their names on their Facebook pages.

This was part of a general policy about honorary titles of all kinds. But the title “Father” plays a different role in the lives of people in ancient Christian flocks. It’s not a professional title, it’s a sacramental title.

My own Orthodox godfather — the popular online scribe Father Stephen Freeman — responded by putting “(Father Stephen Freeman)” after his name. Other priests found clever ways to add their identity to the top of their Facebook pages. That, of course, doesn’t help people find their sites with searches for their actual names, including the word “Father.”

Podcast.jpg

Like I said, there have been more consequential clashes between the Big Tech czars and religious believers, but that one was symbolic.

The key is that faith is part of daily life, for millions of folks. These days, social media software has a massive impact on how people live their lives. Thus, Big Tech is a powerful force in the lives of believers and their families. That’s why “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I talked about this week’s Big Tech Congressional hearings, during this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in).

So what were these hearings all about? Apparently, the answer to that question depended on one’s political ties. As I wrote the other day:

Democrats have their own reasons to be concerned about Big Tech, whose clout in the lives of modern Americans make the railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age look like minor-league players. These companies, after all, resemble digital public utilities more than mere Fortune 500 powerhouses.

Meanwhile, you know that — at some point — Republicans are going to roll out a long list of cases of viewpoint discrimination against cultural, moral, religious and — oh yeah — political conservatives.

So what happened, when the mainstream press covered the Hill showdown with the glowing digital images of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Apple’s Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos of Amazon and The Washington Post?

All four of those men have a major impact on what is news and what is not news. However, Bezos — spending some pocket change, as the richest man in the world — did buy the The Washington Post a few years ago.

So let’s start with his newspaper’s coverage, which ran online with this headline: “Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google grilled on Capitol Hill over their market power.” Here’s the overture:

The leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google took a brutal political lashing … as Democrats and Republicans confronted the executives for wielding their market power to crush competitors and amass data, customers and sky-high profits.

The rare interrogation played out over the course of a nearly six-hour hearing, with lawmakers on the House’s top antitrust subcommittee coming armed with millions of documents, hundreds of hours of interviews and in some cases the once-private messages of Silicon Valley’s elite chiefs. They said it showed some in the tech sector had become too big and powerful, threatening rivals, consumers and, in some cases, even democracy itself.

“Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy,” said Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.).

The key words there are “market” and “economy.”

The entire story focuses on the concerns that Democrats, and many Republicans, have about the impact that the Big Tech superpowers have on their alleged competitors in a free market.

What about their impact on America’s marketplace of ideas? Do the disciples of these men tend to tilt the scales when it comes to deciding who gets to speak, and who doesn’t, on their platforms? Isn’t that topic half of this story, if one looks at it from the point of view of people who USE these platforms?

Post readers had to go 581 words into this piece to find this digital crust of bread:

Republicans, meanwhile, largely used their time during the hearing to attack some tech companies for engaging in perceived political censorship against conservatives, a charge that the industry vehemently denies.

“We all think the free market is great. We think competition is great. We love the fact that these are American companies,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “But what’s not great is censoring people, censoring conservators and trying to impact elections. And if it doesn’t end, there has to be consequences.”

That’s that. No discussion of religious groups being pushed out of the Apple app store. No talk, apparently, about Google staffers mourning their “loss” in the 2016 election. No talk about Twitter blacklist issues linked to the “shadow banning” of cultural and political conservatives.

No flashbacks to 2010 and the wars over Apple banning the Manhattan Declaration app from its all-powerful online store.

What was that all about? Here is the headline written by the journalists at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: “Apple Rejects Homophobic iPhone App for the Second Time.”

The offensive content, of course, was the defense of centuries of Jewish, Christian and Muslim doctrines on marriage and sexuality. Thus, the Baptist Press headline said: “Appalling': Apple again rejects iPhone Christian 'app'.” The key document defining the Manhattan Declaration can be found here.

Now, it’s clear that this was a debate with articulate voices on both sides. Who did the Big Tech czars back in that turning point clash on the digital front lines?

So what about The New York Times report on the hearings? That one started strong: “Lawmakers, United in Their Ire, Lash Out at Big Tech’s Leaders.”

WASHINGTON — The chief executives of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, four tech giants worth nearly $5 trillion combined, faced withering questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike on Wednesday for the tactics and market dominance that had made their enterprises successful.

For more than five hours, the 15 members of an antitrust panel in the House lobbed questions and repeatedly interrupted and talked over Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google.

It was the first congressional hearing for some time where Democrats and Republicans acted as if they had a common foe, though for different reasons. Democratic lawmakers criticized the tech companies for buying start-ups to stifle them and for unfairly using their data hoards to clone and kill off competitors, while Republicans questioned whether the platforms had muzzled conservative viewpoints and were unpatriotic.

That was a promising start.

Want to guess how many inches of type were dedicated to the religious, moral and cultural issues in the rest of that story?

How about the Associated Press and the wire-service report that would be seen in the vast majority of American newspapers? The online AP headline: “Lawmakers batter Big Tech CEOs, but don’t land many blows.” Here is the coverage of the religious, moral and cultural issues in this debate:

As Democrats largely focused on market competition, several Republicans aired longstanding grievances, claiming the tech companies are censoring conservative voices and questioning their business activities in China. “Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” insisted Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Nothing to see here. Please move along, all of your bigoted folks clinging to your ancient doctrines. There is no need for journalists to cover your concerns about Big Tech.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others.


Please respect our Commenting Policy