Increasingly Big Tech companies look more and more like monopolists, and regulation is more likely. Obtaining a monopoly is hardly illegal and does not necessarily warrant government intervention. However, abusing that position can bring the wrath of government down and down hard — ask the heirs XOM, +0.41% CHV, +1.42% , BP, +0.22% MRO, +1.44% to the Standard Oil Trust, XOM, +0.41% former executives at Ma Bell T, +1.02% or Bill Gates about Microsoft’s MSFT, +0.61% wounds.
Even conservatives are growing skeptical about how Amazon AMZN, -1.51% and Alphabet GOOG, -1.75% treat business partners and users. Google, Twitter TWTR, -4.52% and Facebook FB, -1.86% are in the crosshairs for abusing private data, permitting fake accounts to peddle fraudulent products and disinformation, and lax responses to foreign governments seeking to corrupt our elections.
Also read: Google earned its dominance on merit, not by abusing antitrust law
Following hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding more hearings on Wednesday.
Each company benefits from the “network effect.” For example, in the days of landline telephones, one monopoly company was worth more than three competing businesses because a single subscriber could reach everyone in town.
It’s tough for manufacturers and retailers to rely only on conventional brick-and-mortar stores to attract enough consumers. With the lion’s share of web commerce on its platforms, Amazon is the compelling choice.
This permits Amazon to set prices and learn suppliers’ business models to establish new ventures. For example, Amazon sells its own line of ladies apparel and data analytic services mirroring those of its cloud clients.
Kenneth Rogoff asks: Has Big Tech gotten too big for our own good?
Google, Facebook and Twitter offer the most efficient means for keeping up with the news, friends and the latest ruminations of President Donald Trump, and spreading one’s own views widely. Subscribers can’t go elsewhere to get the same information, immediacy and impact but those services must finance themselves — hence they mine personal data.
That is not a bad bargain if they don’t abuse it. However, episodes like Cambridge Analytica selling services to political campaigns, laxity in ferreting out fake Russian accounts in the 2016 elections, and the suppression of conservative commentators indicate social media can be callous and cavalier.
Improving data privacy is not hard. California is enacting safeguards similar to those recently imposed by the European Union that requires internet companies to be clear about the data they collect and obtain permission to mine it. However, policing bad actors and living with West Coast liberal piety are other matters altogether.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who encouraged activists to harass Trump administration officials, still has Twitter and Facebook accounts. Do you suppose I would still have either if I organized early-morning demonstrations outside her residence with the specific intention of keeping her from her congressional duties or encouraging her resignation?
Even more menacing are proposals that the thought and speech police should be institutionalized—similar to syllabus and speech codes that are destroying the free exchange of ideas at America’s universities.
In a well-meaning proposal, the director of the Personal Democracy Forum suggests that a multi-stakeholder content congress be privately organized — akin to the private bodies that manage internet protocols — to advise web companies about criteria for listing accounts and filtering content. You can bet that body would be stacked with the kind of liberal academics and legitimize the kind of content screening Google executives currently undertake but deny.
Google and Amazon business practices should be subject to a thorough review by the Justice Department. To ensure their earnest intent when screening ads, these businesses should be required to bear some financial liability for third-party frauds using their networks.
Congress should require Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter to open their content algorithms to full public security, verify the identity of user accounts and ferret out fake accounts—especially those of foreign actors—whether they publish biblical passages or spread wholesale lies. After all, if someone wants to post material that children or folks with limited time to verify content may read, he ought to sign it—with his real name and location.
Beyond these, Congress needs to resist the urge to act impulsively — our democracy is resilient. Americans are generally well educated, and we profit from hearing the worst nuts and thoughtful views contrary to our own.
That’s why we don’t have prior government restraint of free speech, and we should not assign that power on the internet to private entities. Baring attempts to impede our government or insight violence — let people say what they like.
