On CNN, Kara Swisher argues with Scott Jennings that there is “no proof” of tech/gov collusion to suppress the Hunter Laptop story in 2020.
“The issue is, is you think Twitter is the government, you think Twitter is running things and there is not this wide collusion. But JD Vance knows that because he’s worked in tech, he knows there are there is no such thing as Big Tech. There are big tech companies. They do not collude on this.”
In this recent exchange on CNN, tech journalist Kara Swisher seemingly attempted to dismiss the notion of collusion between tech giants and government entities during the 2020 election regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Her argument rests on a technically true but contextually misleading premise: that there was no “wide collusion” or that big tech companies don’t collude in the classic sense of the term. Here’s why this defense is not only inadequate but also skirts around the heart of the issue:
Misdefining Collusion: Swisher suggests that because J.D. Vance, having worked in tech, would know there’s no monolithic “Big Tech” entity coordinating actions, there’s no collusion. However, collusion doesn’t require a formal agreement or a single entity. It’s about parallel actions towards a common goal, often influenced by similar pressures or incentives. The tech industry’s behavior during the laptop story suppression exhibited a form of tacit coordination, where knowing how each platform would act (due to similar self-interests, political leanings, or fear of regulatory backlash) led to similar outcomes without explicit agreements.
Ignoring the Broader Context: Swisher’s argument overlooks the broader ecosystem where government officials, through public statements and backchannel communications, signaled to tech companies what might be considered “misinformation” or “disinformation”. The FBI’s involvement in warning social media platforms about foreign disinformation, which included the laptop story, suggests a form of guidance or pressure from government entities to tech companies, which could reasonably be interpreted as a type of collusion or influence, even if not legally binding.
The Role of Self-Interest: Tech companies, driven by self-interest to avoid antitrust scrutiny or to curry favor with whichever administration might be in power, have a motivation to align their actions with perceived governmental expectations. This isn’t about tech companies being “the government” but about mutually beneficial behavior where interests conveniently align, which is a sophisticated form of collusion by any practical definition.
Public Perception vs. Technical Accuracy: While Swisher might be correct in a narrow legal or technical sense, the public’s perception of collusion is shaped by actions and outcomes, not just formal agreements. When multiple platforms take virtually identical actions against a story that could impact an election, the public rightly senses coordination, whether it’s formal collusion or not.
The Laptop Story’s Suppression: The Hunter Biden laptop story was not just suppressed by one platform but was systematically discounted across media and tech as “Russian disinformation” with little initial investigation. This uniform response, regardless of the formalities, indicates a coordinated skepticism or dismissal that, in the public eye, looks like collusion, especially when government officials are part of the dialogue.
Swisher’s defense, while perhaps aiming to highlight the independence of tech companies, fails to address the real issue: the appearance and effect of coordination in suppressing a significant story due to political implications. This goes beyond legal definitions of collusion into the realm of functional coordination driven by shared interests, pressures, or incentives. The argument she presents might be technically true but misses the forest for the trees, ignoring how these actions, in the aggregate, undermine public trust in both government and technology companies by creating an environment where such narratives are easily shaped or suppressed.