Guide to the 2024 Presidential Election: Tech & the Internet

Welcome to the ReOrganized Tech Guide to the 2024 Presidential Election! A special issue brought to you by the Kairos Campaigns Team. We hope this guide is a helpful addition to your overall political analysis and voting plans.

Here's a breakdown of where each presidential candidate stands on two of the biggest tech policy issues right now: AI and antitrust.

Let’s start with Trump. There’s a reason why Elon Musk has cozied up to Trump. The former president’s ideas align with what many Big Tech execs like Musk want — an extremely light touch approach to regulation and a political landscape in which they can do whatever they want and continue to make billions off our data and disinformation. Here’s what we can expect from a Trump administration: 

Trump will support unchecked industry sprawl rather than breaking up Big Tech — as long as it serves him. A few months ago, Trump was all in on prosecuting Google for showing “bad stories” of him. But recently, he went back on that sentiment saying “China is afraid of Google…What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair.” So, if it makes China mad, I guess monopolies are fine? Let’s also not forget that Trump’s picks to the Supreme Court disastrously helped overturn the 40-year old Chevron doctrine this year — drastically curtailing the power of regulatory agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission. The end of Chevron means that federal agencies will be less able to protect consumers in favor of Big Tech and Big Business.

Trump would roll back any progress we have made on holding tech accountable in the last 4 years. I’m not being dramatic; he literally said he would repeal the AI Executive Order that the Biden administration released. While deeply flawed and industry-driven, the 2023 Executive Order includes language around risk management and “responsible” AI development through models like an AI Bill of Rights Blueprint and Voluntary AI Commitments from tech companies. We need regulation and protections that go far beyond the Biden administration’s plans to prioritize people and civil rights over industry and so-called national security, but Trump pushes us even farther in the opposite direction.

Trump will continue to focus on "free speech," allowing tech execs to lead the conversation on “safety.” Trump vowed to “support AI Development rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing.” If you read that and asked yourself: what does that mean? Don’t worry, you’re not alone. What I do know is that Trump’s rhetoric around free speech has always meant protecting hate speech and disinformation that serves him, while simultaneously banning or limiting speech that challenges injustice or inhumanity.

On the other side of the aisle, Harris’s supposed stance on tech issues can be summed up in this quote from her November 2023 speech: “I reject the false choice that suggests we can either protect the public or advance innovation. We can and must do both.” However, we have yet to see the Vice President put this protection into action. I’ll explain. In a Harris presidency, here’s what we can expect:

Harris would likely continue the direction of the Biden Administration on AI. Harris served as the Biden’s administration AI “czar.” In this role, Harris spoke on behalf of the administration on AI issues, partnered with AI industry players during policy development, and helped to put together the list of voluntary commitments on making “responsible” AI. Her work here does touch on civil rights and privacy issues, but hasn’t yet got us to what we need.

We need much more than voluntary commitments that companies can easily ignore and an administration that meets with industry reps over the people’s advocates. We need oversight and strong regulation of the companies making AI products. Which leads me to the next point.

Harris would try to stay committed to industry “innovation” while also navigating a pressing need for regulation, although it’s unclear how far she would go. Harris has taken some steps towards regulating tech. For example, in March of this year, Harris announced binding requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aimed at preventing AI from being used in discriminatory ways by government agencies. While this is a huge step forward, the memo leaves critical gaps and concerning exceptions for national security and police use of AI that bypass these protections.

In the only Presidential candidate debate, Harris said the U.S. must “win the race on AI and quantum computing.” The problem with this statement is two-fold:  

1. “Innovation at all costs” is the name of the game when it comes to Big Tech and a slippery slope. When we see AI as a race to win, it leads to unfettered growth at the expense of guardrails and basic human rights, and feeds into this country’s history of justifying state violence, surveillance, and policing because of national security. If Kamala Harris wants to “win AI,” will she waver on strong tech regulation? Will she promote the development of more militarized tech?

2. “Innovation” must not come at the expense of our communities or our planet. Just look at AI’s impact on the environment. In an article on Google and Microsoft’s soaring energy usage, NPR captured the AI’s impact on climate pretty perfectly: “A ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity as a Google search query. And as AI gets more sophisticated, it needs more energy. In the U.S., a majority of that energy comes from burning fossil fuels like coal and gas which are primary drivers of climate change.” 

We are seeing climate catastrophes worldwide – from the floods in North Carolina, to this spring and summer’s heat waves in Southeast Asia. Extreme weather is killing, displacing, and economically devastating people worldwide, with communities of color and poor folks most affected.

Harris may or may not try to break up Big Tech, leaving us to wait and see. There’s not a lot of history here to lean on. However, Harris has been quiet on calls from Silicon Valley to fire Lina Khan, the Chair of the FTC who has been bringing crucial monopoly cases against Big Tech. This could leave room for us to push Harris, as president, to support the work of agencies like the FTC in regulating Big Tech and breaking up the amount of power any one company has over our digital lives. 

No matter the president, we still need to harness our collective power as users and consumers to fight for a world where tech works for all. A world where tech works for all is possible – we just have to be in it together.