As the clock winds down on both chambers heading into August, antitrust advocates are throwing late-round haymakers to blacken Beltway eyes, obscuring a clearer picture of the antitrust bills’ (S. 2992’s and S. 2710’s) harmful results. The bills’ backers have achieved some success, as some of this beat’s most respected journalists seem to give witheringly short shrift to the negative (including privacy and security) effects of the bills. The typical article covering the bills cursorily attributes the bills’ flaws only to the protestations of the Big Tech companies in the crosshairs (even though a much broader group points to them), while citing “experts” who disagree. Then, the discussion usually turns to how much money Big Tech is spending to defend itself against a government takeover of private platforms.

This rhetorical equivalent of averting the reader’s gaze with a gentle nudge of the chin invites skepticism because there is something to see here. For starters, the one expert we’re aware of (not “experts”) who specifically disputes the claim that the bills would enable more successful malware attacks is Bruce Schneier. But Mr. Schneier is more of a cryptography expert who, as we explained in another post, dramatically underappreciates that almost all smartphone users want privacy and security built into their smart devices—and mainly lack the wherewithal to perform the app stores’ vetting functions on their own. Not only that, but Mr. Schneier also published a later post explaining how the bills would interfere with encryption. So, in the area he knows best, he clearly sees the negative effects of extreme government intervention in private platform offerings.

Shining a brighter light on the underside of this particular rug, the shapes that emerge should be familiar. You may recall that Sections 3(a)(4) and 3(a)(7) of S. 2992 would prohibit the major software platforms from restricting access by any app (with extremely limited exceptions) to the operating system, device features, and consumers’ personal information. And S. 2710 is even worse, as it takes a belt-and-suspenders approach to prohibiting cybersecurity functions by requiring readily accessible sideloading, while mandating open access to the operating system, development information, and hardware and software features. This is the not-so-pretty underbelly of mandating open access and advocates are going to great lengths to either hide it or make sure you don’t listen to those pointing it out, including trying to ruin their credibility.

The fact that requiring the app stores to carry malware gets little or no ink in reporting on the bills is indicative of how much these bills’ support depends on a stylized narrative. But the facts, when acknowledged, make supporting the bills complicated. Even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), led by a person who helped write the report recommending the bills, is wise to remain silent given its interest in not having to clean up the mess the bills would make. The FTC’s own unanimously-approved complaint against SpyFone details how the app required users to ignore warnings from Android against sideloading and bypass default security settings to provide permission to the app to surveil its target. Mandating that iOS and Android accommodate SpyFone—and its ilk—both dooms the Commission to playing many more rounds of whack-a-mole with spyware and removes the FTC’s main advantage by making it presumptively illegal for the platforms to help keep them off smart devices. If the FTC does strike a balance between consumer protection and aspirational notions of competition in tech markets, then it shouldn’t come out in favor of the bills.

Adopting a convenient blindness to these realities would not help any of the Senators who might be intimidated into joining the reluctant 60 needed to pass the bills out of the Senate. Their constituents don’t think of punishing tech companies as a high priority, nor do they want Congress to mess up the security of their phones. Over the August break, our prescription for Senators as they face their constituents is to put the swelling on ice and come back to D.C. in September with a clear-eyed view of what the antitrust bills would actually do to small businesses, consumers, and competition.