Adam Kovacevich
@adamkovac.bsky.social
Founder and CEO, Chamber of Progress. Pro-tech Democrat. Ex: Google, Lime.
One of the things I hear a lot from tech co's is that they don't love everything Trump is doing, but they genuinely appreciate that they can get a meeting w/ his staff.
In contast, Biden's WH ended up adopting @SenWarren's view that Dems should never meet with companies.
In contast, Biden's WH ended up adopting @SenWarren's view that Dems should never meet with companies.
November 5, 2025 at 6:14 PM
One of the things I hear a lot from tech co's is that they don't love everything Trump is doing, but they genuinely appreciate that they can get a meeting w/ his staff.
In contast, Biden's WH ended up adopting @SenWarren's view that Dems should never meet with companies.
In contast, Biden's WH ended up adopting @SenWarren's view that Dems should never meet with companies.
It's silly to me that Dayen says we're a "front" group. Since I founded the group in 2021 we have listed our corporate partners on our website.
Wow, a real gotcha there.
x.com/ddayen/stat...
Wow, a real gotcha there.
x.com/ddayen/stat...
October 31, 2025 at 2:04 PM
It's silly to me that Dayen says we're a "front" group. Since I founded the group in 2021 we have listed our corporate partners on our website.
Wow, a real gotcha there.
x.com/ddayen/stat...
Wow, a real gotcha there.
x.com/ddayen/stat...
And of course, we didn't ask Trump to "block" lawsuits - he can't do that. But the Administration can file amicus briefs to express its view - just like the Biden DOJ in the Epic v. Apple antitrust case.
October 31, 2025 at 2:04 PM
And of course, we didn't ask Trump to "block" lawsuits - he can't do that. But the Administration can file amicus briefs to express its view - just like the Biden DOJ in the Epic v. Apple antitrust case.
And Doctorow's "policy solutions" are all deeply anti-consumer ideas that would raise prices for consumers, and force Amazon packages to be delivered less slowly.
That would all make Amazon's alleged "enshittification" worse!
That would all make Amazon's alleged "enshittification" worse!
October 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM
And Doctorow's "policy solutions" are all deeply anti-consumer ideas that would raise prices for consumers, and force Amazon packages to be delivered less slowly.
That would all make Amazon's alleged "enshittification" worse!
That would all make Amazon's alleged "enshittification" worse!
220M people worldwide belong to Amazon Prime, but Doctorow can't imagine that people actually value the service. In his view, all it sells is "low-quality, high-priced junk."
Apparently those 220M people are mindless idiots, incapable of assessing the true value of Prime.
Apparently those 220M people are mindless idiots, incapable of assessing the true value of Prime.
October 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM
220M people worldwide belong to Amazon Prime, but Doctorow can't imagine that people actually value the service. In his view, all it sells is "low-quality, high-priced junk."
Apparently those 220M people are mindless idiots, incapable of assessing the true value of Prime.
Apparently those 220M people are mindless idiots, incapable of assessing the true value of Prime.
Cory Doctorow's @doctorow"Enshittification" really ought to have been called "Ensheepification."
It claims to be pro-consumer, but in truth it perpetuates an elite view of consumers as mindless sheep incapable of judging quality/value for themselves.
x.com/linamkhan/s...
It claims to be pro-consumer, but in truth it perpetuates an elite view of consumers as mindless sheep incapable of judging quality/value for themselves.
x.com/linamkhan/s...
October 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Cory Doctorow's @doctorow"Enshittification" really ought to have been called "Ensheepification."
It claims to be pro-consumer, but in truth it perpetuates an elite view of consumers as mindless sheep incapable of judging quality/value for themselves.
x.com/linamkhan/s...
It claims to be pro-consumer, but in truth it perpetuates an elite view of consumers as mindless sheep incapable of judging quality/value for themselves.
x.com/linamkhan/s...
5. Congress should impose mandatory data sharing b/c Google is too vulnerable to govt's whims.
Does Angwin really believe smaller companies are *more* likely to withstand Trump pressure?
Does Angwin really believe smaller companies are *more* likely to withstand Trump pressure?
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
5. Congress should impose mandatory data sharing b/c Google is too vulnerable to govt's whims.
Does Angwin really believe smaller companies are *more* likely to withstand Trump pressure?
Does Angwin really believe smaller companies are *more* likely to withstand Trump pressure?
4. We need new rival search engines - for shopping, scholarly papers, and custom news search
I suggest Angwin check out:
Shopping → Amazon
Scholarly papers → JSTOR, SSRN
Custom news search → ChatGPT
This all exists already.
I suggest Angwin check out:
Shopping → Amazon
Scholarly papers → JSTOR, SSRN
Custom news search → ChatGPT
This all exists already.
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
4. We need new rival search engines - for shopping, scholarly papers, and custom news search
I suggest Angwin check out:
Shopping → Amazon
Scholarly papers → JSTOR, SSRN
Custom news search → ChatGPT
This all exists already.
I suggest Angwin check out:
Shopping → Amazon
Scholarly papers → JSTOR, SSRN
Custom news search → ChatGPT
This all exists already.
3. Angwin: Courts should break up Google bc Trump is trying to censor speech
Reality: DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater argued that Google should be broken up *because* she didn't like the way it had allegedly censored conservatives!
Of course, the case was never *about* speech
Reality: DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater argued that Google should be broken up *because* she didn't like the way it had allegedly censored conservatives!
Of course, the case was never *about* speech
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
3. Angwin: Courts should break up Google bc Trump is trying to censor speech
Reality: DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater argued that Google should be broken up *because* she didn't like the way it had allegedly censored conservatives!
Of course, the case was never *about* speech
Reality: DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater argued that Google should be broken up *because* she didn't like the way it had allegedly censored conservatives!
Of course, the case was never *about* speech
The LLM Leaderboard ranking the quality of LLMs doesn't even put Google's Gemini in the top 10!
artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboard...
artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboard...
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
The LLM Leaderboard ranking the quality of LLMs doesn't even put Google's Gemini in the top 10!
artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboard...
artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboard...
2. Angwin: "Even the best AI models can't compete without regular access to Google's search index."
Tell that to OpenAI, Meta (Llama), and Anthropic. AI models are a lot more complicated than just access to a web search index. And
Tell that to OpenAI, Meta (Llama), and Anthropic. AI models are a lot more complicated than just access to a web search index. And
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
2. Angwin: "Even the best AI models can't compete without regular access to Google's search index."
Tell that to OpenAI, Meta (Llama), and Anthropic. AI models are a lot more complicated than just access to a web search index. And
Tell that to OpenAI, Meta (Llama), and Anthropic. AI models are a lot more complicated than just access to a web search index. And
1. Angwin worries that the remedy opens door for the Trump Admin to start pressuring Google on search results.
But Trump has already been doing that, just like Biden Admin did before him. But the technical cmte Trump's DOJ was seeking in the G case would have gone further!
But Trump has already been doing that, just like Biden Admin did before him. But the technical cmte Trump's DOJ was seeking in the G case would have gone further!
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
1. Angwin worries that the remedy opens door for the Trump Admin to start pressuring Google on search results.
But Trump has already been doing that, just like Biden Admin did before him. But the technical cmte Trump's DOJ was seeking in the G case would have gone further!
But Trump has already been doing that, just like Biden Admin did before him. But the technical cmte Trump's DOJ was seeking in the G case would have gone further!
NYT's @JuliaAngwin has a new piece out on the Google search case, long on Google panic and short on facts and reality.
A few things that jumped out...
🧵
A few things that jumped out...
🧵
September 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
NYT's @JuliaAngwin has a new piece out on the Google search case, long on Google panic and short on facts and reality.
A few things that jumped out...
🧵
A few things that jumped out...
🧵
In rejecting Google critics' fantastical remedies, his ruling today cited the MSFT precedent nine different times: Remedies must be “tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for the remedy.”
September 2, 2025 at 9:23 PM
In rejecting Google critics' fantastical remedies, his ruling today cited the MSFT precedent nine different times: Remedies must be “tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for the remedy.”
It wasn't that Bidenomics or anti-corporate populism failed, Khan says. It's that they needed more time to unwind neoliberalism.
The self-delusion runs deep.
This was a political and policy dead-end that Dems need to chuck for good.
The self-delusion runs deep.
This was a political and policy dead-end that Dems need to chuck for good.
August 31, 2025 at 3:15 PM
It wasn't that Bidenomics or anti-corporate populism failed, Khan says. It's that they needed more time to unwind neoliberalism.
The self-delusion runs deep.
This was a political and policy dead-end that Dems need to chuck for good.
The self-delusion runs deep.
This was a political and policy dead-end that Dems need to chuck for good.
Then she goes on to say that voters were focused on cost of living (true). And that was only due to corporate price gouging, which she was working on.
But as @mattyglesias has noted, Khan's ZIRP-era antitrust claim to fame was that some things mattered more than low prices!
But as @mattyglesias has noted, Khan's ZIRP-era antitrust claim to fame was that some things mattered more than low prices!
August 31, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Then she goes on to say that voters were focused on cost of living (true). And that was only due to corporate price gouging, which she was working on.
But as @mattyglesias has noted, Khan's ZIRP-era antitrust claim to fame was that some things mattered more than low prices!
But as @mattyglesias has noted, Khan's ZIRP-era antitrust claim to fame was that some things mattered more than low prices!
Lina Khan (@linamkhan) just got asked the $64,000 question by @SohrabAhmari :
If post-neoliberalism was what working class voters wanted, why did Trump stomp Harris among the working class?
Of course, Khan can't admit that the whole theory was flawed.
If post-neoliberalism was what working class voters wanted, why did Trump stomp Harris among the working class?
Of course, Khan can't admit that the whole theory was flawed.
August 31, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Lina Khan (@linamkhan) just got asked the $64,000 question by @SohrabAhmari :
If post-neoliberalism was what working class voters wanted, why did Trump stomp Harris among the working class?
Of course, Khan can't admit that the whole theory was flawed.
If post-neoliberalism was what working class voters wanted, why did Trump stomp Harris among the working class?
Of course, Khan can't admit that the whole theory was flawed.
A federal judge is about to hand down "remedies" in Google's big search antitrust trial.
Google could be forced to:
- Sell Chrome
- Share search data with rivals
- Stop paying for distribution deals
- Let Trump Admin oversee search
Here are a few key things to watch for:
🧵
Google could be forced to:
- Sell Chrome
- Share search data with rivals
- Stop paying for distribution deals
- Let Trump Admin oversee search
Here are a few key things to watch for:
🧵
August 28, 2025 at 7:01 PM
A federal judge is about to hand down "remedies" in Google's big search antitrust trial.
Google could be forced to:
- Sell Chrome
- Share search data with rivals
- Stop paying for distribution deals
- Let Trump Admin oversee search
Here are a few key things to watch for:
🧵
Google could be forced to:
- Sell Chrome
- Share search data with rivals
- Stop paying for distribution deals
- Let Trump Admin oversee search
Here are a few key things to watch for:
🧵
4. Consumers get a worse Google if G is forced to share with rivals.
Undoubtedly, Google being forced to share its search data would be great for G's rivals. But imagine that an award-winning bakery was forced to share its cupcake recipe w/ rivals. They would stop innovating.
Undoubtedly, Google being forced to share its search data would be great for G's rivals. But imagine that an award-winning bakery was forced to share its cupcake recipe w/ rivals. They would stop innovating.
August 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
4. Consumers get a worse Google if G is forced to share with rivals.
Undoubtedly, Google being forced to share its search data would be great for G's rivals. But imagine that an award-winning bakery was forced to share its cupcake recipe w/ rivals. They would stop innovating.
Undoubtedly, Google being forced to share its search data would be great for G's rivals. But imagine that an award-winning bakery was forced to share its cupcake recipe w/ rivals. They would stop innovating.
2. Divesting Chrome has zero connection to the DOJ's original case.
If DOJ believed Chrome gave G an unfair advantage in search, it should have brought a self-preferencing case. It didn't. Tim's claim otherwise is revisionist wishcasting.
If DOJ believed Chrome gave G an unfair advantage in search, it should have brought a self-preferencing case. It didn't. Tim's claim otherwise is revisionist wishcasting.
August 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
2. Divesting Chrome has zero connection to the DOJ's original case.
If DOJ believed Chrome gave G an unfair advantage in search, it should have brought a self-preferencing case. It didn't. Tim's claim otherwise is revisionist wishcasting.
If DOJ believed Chrome gave G an unfair advantage in search, it should have brought a self-preferencing case. It didn't. Tim's claim otherwise is revisionist wishcasting.
2. It wasn't the trial hindering Google in AI. It was Big Company Syndrome.
Tim argues that the "trial was the remedy" by constraining G from doing AI distribution deals. But Google initially lost its AI edge to ChatGPT,not due to $ deals but internal bureaucracy and slowness.
Tim argues that the "trial was the remedy" by constraining G from doing AI distribution deals. But Google initially lost its AI edge to ChatGPT,not due to $ deals but internal bureaucracy and slowness.
August 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
2. It wasn't the trial hindering Google in AI. It was Big Company Syndrome.
Tim argues that the "trial was the remedy" by constraining G from doing AI distribution deals. But Google initially lost its AI edge to ChatGPT,not due to $ deals but internal bureaucracy and slowness.
Tim argues that the "trial was the remedy" by constraining G from doing AI distribution deals. But Google initially lost its AI edge to ChatGPT,not due to $ deals but internal bureaucracy and slowness.
1. The case wasn't about competition in AI.
The DOJ's initial case against Google mentioned AI just once. Tim and others have wishcast this case into being "about AI" - but that's not the case DOJ filed. And doing a far-reaching remedy on AI risks an appeals court slapdown.
The DOJ's initial case against Google mentioned AI just once. Tim and others have wishcast this case into being "about AI" - but that's not the case DOJ filed. And doing a far-reaching remedy on AI risks an appeals court slapdown.
August 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
1. The case wasn't about competition in AI.
The DOJ's initial case against Google mentioned AI just once. Tim and others have wishcast this case into being "about AI" - but that's not the case DOJ filed. And doing a far-reaching remedy on AI risks an appeals court slapdown.
The DOJ's initial case against Google mentioned AI just once. Tim and others have wishcast this case into being "about AI" - but that's not the case DOJ filed. And doing a far-reaching remedy on AI risks an appeals court slapdown.
Tim Wu (@superwuster) has a new NYT on the forthcoming Google search antitrust remedies ruling.
There are 5 things wrong with his claims.
🧵
There are 5 things wrong with his claims.
🧵
August 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Tim Wu (@superwuster) has a new NYT on the forthcoming Google search antitrust remedies ruling.
There are 5 things wrong with his claims.
🧵
There are 5 things wrong with his claims.
🧵
I believe in a big tent Democratic party. We need all factions to win.
Acela + Labor + Greens = 50% of the vote
Nationals + Conservatives = 44% of the vote
But Dems let the Green faction drive our messaging & policy in the Biden era - and that was a mistake.
10/
Acela + Labor + Greens = 50% of the vote
Nationals + Conservatives = 44% of the vote
But Dems let the Green faction drive our messaging & policy in the Biden era - and that was a mistake.
10/
July 14, 2025 at 12:45 PM
I believe in a big tent Democratic party. We need all factions to win.
Acela + Labor + Greens = 50% of the vote
Nationals + Conservatives = 44% of the vote
But Dems let the Green faction drive our messaging & policy in the Biden era - and that was a mistake.
10/
Acela + Labor + Greens = 50% of the vote
Nationals + Conservatives = 44% of the vote
But Dems let the Green faction drive our messaging & policy in the Biden era - and that was a mistake.
10/
