Battles over corporate power that played out over the course of the 20th century may provide the best clues to how companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon might ultimately be reined in. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that the moderation of malicious content online could be overseen by an industry standards body similar to the Hollywood system for rating movies established in the 1960s. Another potential model is the body with roots in the 1930s that polices the securities industry, according to Zuckerberg’s top US policy executive, Kevin Martin. The communications chief Zuckerberg hired in April, John Pinette, was a spokesman for Microsoft during its 1990s antitrust fight with the federal government. Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, who referenced antitrust cases against Microsoft and IBM in his May 9 NYT op-ed calling to break up the company.

Sen Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said that Silicon Valley has been arrogant, with a "toxic undercurrent" to industry practices that "can't be ignored," -- and wouldn't be ignored by Washington. She suggested that Big Tech needed to lose the attitude and engage with policymakers "more directly and respectfully" rather than "ducking out on hearings when called to testify." She said the only thing Facebook has done right in the past year is to prove they can no longer self-regulate. She said she was not necessarily looking to break up Big Tech, but she did not rule it out, either, saying that was a conversation for another day. Sen Blackburn signaled that she recognized the need for legislation to balance the need to protect privacy while not harming the ad-supported internet business model that has been such an economic driver.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is hoping to get key committees on the same page when it comes to the tech industry and data privacy. He’s drafting a letter to leaders on Senate Banking and Senate Commerce committees to sort out jurisdictional questions related to the sector. “I’m going to have Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein and myself, we’re going to write a letter to the other committees of jurisdiction and see if we can come up with sort of a common approach to the issues,” he said. Sen Graham said the letter will likely be sent next week. Chairman Graham cited recent hearings on data privacy held by all three committees as a sign lawmakers should coordinate their efforts. “I want to be very deferential to the other committees because I think they have primary jurisdiction but we do have some say,” he said. At least one Judiciary member — Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) — has raised the specter of his panel marking up potential privacy legislation instead of the Commerce Committee. But Chairman Graham recently affirmed that Commerce will take the lead on privacy markups. “It’s something I hope we can move on together with Commerce in the lead,” he said.

Democratic Reps are pushing to revive funding for a nonpartisan agency intended to better inform lawmakers about technology. At issue is the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was created by Congress in 1972 but closed its doors in 1995 after the then GOP-controlled House cut its funding. The agency provided lawmakers and staffers with expertise on science and technology issues relevant to legislation and public policy, including the areas of intellectual property, technological change, and climate.

The debate over the agency is back in the spotlight after a House Appropriations subcommittee voted May 9 to designate $6 million to the agency for “necessary expenses” in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal 2020. Democratic Reps say there is a new urgency for the agency, as lawmakers tackle a host of complicated technology issues. But Republican Reps are wary of reopening the agency, arguing that other departments can carry out those tasks without "duplication."