The problems at Facebook and others, real and perceived, at Google, Amazon and Apple have led to an easy consensus: Big tech companies need to be regulated. When Senators Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, call for the same thing, it’s possible that even in Washington – the city where nothing happens – Congress will decide that tech companies need to be regulated.
Such an outcome would be a big mistake – bad for businesses, of course, but also bad for us, their users, and bad for the country.
I do not pretend to be impartial in writing this. Although I’m as tech-savvy as the average 72-year-old, I met Mark Zuckerberg when he was 20 and spent six years on the Facebook board. As publisher and then president of the Post, I watched the rise of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple, sometimes with hope, sometimes with fear and sometimes with horror, at what it meant for the Post’s business. .
To start with the basics: Big tech companies must obey laws that apply to all businesses. They should pay their taxes and comply with antitrust laws. If they make mistakes, they must admit them quickly and act transparently to correct them. Facebook, in particular, faces a huge challenge convincing its users that they can trust it to protect their data.
So why not regulate these companies more? First: Google and Facebook are platforms on which much political discourse and news coverage takes place today, and regulation is an inherently political act. If you want a Technology Business Regulatory Commission, its chair and members will be appointed by the presidents and reflect their policies.
Do presidents actually play a role in regulating or enforcing rules? Well, you can listen to the Watergate tapes and hear President Richard Nixon instruct his advisors John Dean and H.R. Haldeman to use the Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory process to remove television stations owned by The Washington Post Co. Challenges station licenses by Nixon supporters This happened and, had Nixon not resigned, they would have been heard by an FCC headed by the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. It is difficult to convince me that regulation is apolitical.
If you want Google, Facebook, and other tech companies to be regulated, you’re asking for a system in which President Trump – or (perhaps in the future) President Elizabeth Warren – plays a role in deciding what happens. happens on your Facebook page or what arises from your Facebook page. Google search. Is this really what you want?
And how do you argue that the government should be able to regulate speech on YouTube but not your own speech, or that of the Post?
Second: I’ve worked in regulated industries for years, and the regulation can aptly be described as strange. Regulators often do not or cannot speak face to face with those who are regulated to understand the consequences of their actions. The conversation is conducted through attorneys for both parties. Is there a set of regulators in Washington who would understand how Google or Facebook are constituted?
Facebook and Google say they have only one goal in their core businesses: to innovate to satisfy their customers. Regulation introduces a different objective: not to offend regulators. Tech companies must act fast; regulations slow things down, sometimes drastically. This almost inevitably hurts a company’s performance. Money, time and, above all, management attention that could be focused on innovation and customer satisfaction are focused elsewhere.
Since the day it began accepting advertising, Facebook has walked a line, sometimes carefully, sometimes not. It promised advertisers the ability to target ads to users interested in their products; it promised users that their data would be private. Careful compromises should have maintained trust with both user groups.
The most important control over Facebook – greater than anything governments could offer – is the ability for its users to leave. Zuckerberg has a vested interest in keeping our data private and proving that Facebook did so (the standards that allowed Cambridge Analytica to access user data were changed three years ago). Facebook must do everything it can to convince its irritated users that it can be trusted.
Taken together, big tech companies constitute a rare area in which America leads the world. If you don’t think they are important to the country, look at how they are treated elsewhere. In Europe, where there are many unsuccessful competitors, they are sanctioned and regulated not because they break the law, but because they are American. And in China, Facebook and Google – as well as Twitter, YouTube and Wikipedia – are banned because they encourage free speech and free thought.
Instead, the Chinese have created massive competitors such as Tencent and Baidu, shielded from Western competition in their enormous domestic market. If Google and Facebook slow down – remember that most of the world’s users are outside the US – these competitors will easily leave them behind.
Will searching on Baidu or sharing on Tencent help your privacy? I do not think so.
I hope tech companies are wise enough to take the necessary steps to convince users that they care about their privacy. And I hope our country will be wise enough not to regulate them.
© The Washington Post 2018
Tech
