In new research, Arseniy Samsonov builds a model showing how having available to the public a multitude of media outlets and social media platforms would not help reduce misinformation from politicians. Rather, monopolistic power could enable these outlets to retain control over the narratives around the information that these politicians provide to journalists and platforms in exchange for publicity and coverage, thus reducing misinformation.
University of Chicago Booth/Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State 2002 Antitrust and Competition Conference “Antitrust: What’s Next?” Panel Discussion “Big Tech & Freedom of Speech” moderated by Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times with panelists Gilad Edelman of WIRED, Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University, Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University and Ellen Goodman of Rutgers University. April 21, 2022 (photo by Anne Ryan for University of Chicago)
The SEC's definition of fiduciary duty allows institutional shareholders to vote against Elon Musk's Twitter takeover bid thanks to portfolio primacy.
Is the Musk...
In an interview with ProMarket, Nobel laureate Oliver Hart explains why broadening our perspective on fiduciary duty beyond maximizing shareholder wealth could empower individual...
Speaking at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference, Congressmen Darrell Issa and Ken Buck discussed their stances on breaking up Big Tech, Section 230,...
Online social media platforms accepted the role of moderating content from Congress in 1996. The Great Deplatforming that occurred after January 6 was less...
Social media platforms are not infrastructure nor natural monopolies, and they should be regulated only if they have monopolistic power and abuse it. Free...
President Donald Trump's seditious actions are exposing the political power that Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook enjoy. Banning him from their platforms sets...