If there is one issue that can unite the Divided States of America, it is the threat of big tech. Politicians from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Governor Ron DeSantis have advocated for more public scrutiny of Big Tech companies that have ‘undermined democracy’. However, the expansion and explosive growth of these companies seems to be unobstructed. Apple, for instance, has hit a market capitalization of $3 trillion just 3 years after it crossed the $1 trillion milestone, demonstrating the acceleration of technology companies’ dominance and rise in influence.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The same adage that so often have been levied at the government and its centralization of power is equally applicable to Big Tech companies seemingly unbothered by any accountability or sense of civic obligation. This brings the regulation of Big Tech to the forefront of governments’ priorities across the world, and the urgency of the present situation warrants effective and immediate action.
Governments are right to focus on three areas of tech regulation, namely competition, content moderation and privacy. They serve as good starting points for a discussion on the threats of Big Tech, and a springboard for more specific solutions.
The neoliberal myth of mergers as an efficient way for consumers to enjoy lower prices has been dispelled. The presumption of efficient markets with a constant stream of lower-cost competitors or the brushing-off of predatory pricing as non-existent have been ill-calculated. In a sector already prone to monopolies, Big Tech companies have not only reversed the decentralization of innovation but have also continuously fortified its own market position and power. They have acquired or have pushed upstarts out of the market, changing the rules of the game in the process, without giving them a legitimate chance to grow and compete.To ensure competition, legislations should clearly stipulate the definition of ‘monopolies’ and determine which companies fall under that definition. Those that qualify as monopolistic should be prohibited from undertaking certain mergers and acquisitions. On addressing this issue, the European Commission’s proposal of the Digital Markets Act should be considered a step in the right direction.
To address the issue of accountability when it comes to content control, a reliance on Big Tech’s self-regulation is not sufficient, especially when civil liberties, democratic will or the greater social good conflicts with their profits and self-interest. Relying on Facebook’s quasi-judicial oversight board is merely a short-term solution. Instead, to complement self-regulation, governments should consider setting up or strengthening independent regulatory agencies with democratic legitimacy, ideally with legislative and executive support and approval, to adjudicate over content and disputes arising from the exercise of free speech on these virtual platforms. If constitutionally allowed, courts may also play a role as the final arbitrator, providing an additional level of oversight.
One further action governments can take is to treat Google, Facebook and Twitter as publishers with editorial control over the content they allow on their platforms. This would extend pre-existing libel laws over them. Since they have already been doing so indirectly with the targeting of advertisements and their right to permit and censor accounts, this is closely to the reality than the neutral platform they represent themselves to be. In America for example, that would involve repealing section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
More importantly, the role of Big Tech platforms as a mass public forum should be recognized legally. By categorizing them as ‘essential infrastructure’, laws and obligations on non-discrimination and due process that govern the public sector under constitutions or bills of rights can be applied to these companies. A prominent protype of this is the Fairness Doctrine in the US, which had been used to institute the principle of nondiscrimination to radio and television broadcaster before the 1980s. In the context of internet regulation, this would ensure internet users receive a more balanced and less biased range of information, using an algorithm determined more by fairness than by addiction and the need for profit. All of these measures would help increase transparency in these global companies’ decision-making processes.
On the issue of privacy, countries should look to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation for inspiration. New privacy regulations should require companies to map, account and safely store customer data, but should also consider assessment of risks and enact more stringent rules for Big Tech than other smaller companies. Harsh penalties, more severe than current fines under the GDPR, should be introduced. Over time, these measures also produce a net positive effect of raising the public’s awareness on the importance of data privacy.
This leads to a greater discussion on the public’s attitude towards Big Tech. A seismic shift needs to happen to ensure citizens, and not just the government, are empowered with the knowledge to keep Big Tech accountability directly. An important part of this process is education. Big Tech platforms have provided a great deal of convenience to people’s lives, but they are also highly addictive, particularly to children and teenagers who are most vulnerable as they have not developed the mental maturity to approach and consume online information responsibly. Facing the growing prevalence of technology, education systems across the world should include mandatory teaching on the advantages and more urgently, disadvantages of technology in society and in young people’s lives, specifically on internet safety and regulations. This can help the next generation understand the importance of protecting their personal data and the risks that come with the overdependence and overconsumption of internet platforms, creating a potential check on their excessive power and influence from the bottom-up.
Of course, no government can deal with these problems and generate comprehensive solutions alone. A positive development recently is the launch of the EU-US Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue. Scrutiny of Big Tech and the strengthening of competition law need to be a global effort, given how transnational these corporations have become. The limitation of jurisdiction should not be the reason for public authorities to concede accountability and effective enforcement rests on close international collaboration, something both Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition chief, and the newly appointed head of US Federal Trade Commission Lina Khan acknowledged. If this trend continues, perhaps a change of fate would happen, paving the way for a fairer, freer and healthier future.