• Oak Watson

Regulation or Repression? Controlling Big Tech

One can summarise technology regulation quite simply: privacy and profit. Should tech

giants have unchecked access to information and the ability to gain from it? How do we tax

tech giants on profits from digital services? At what point does regulation become

repression, ultimately hurting the consumer? These are important questions that need to be

addressed by policymakers. Consequently, there’s a growing sense in the technology

industry that the incumbent giants are under assault.


The main theoretical argument for regulation is competition, or more specifically, the lack

thereof. In almost all cases, economically speaking, competition is good. Competition acts as

a control on prices, an incentive for firms to minimise costs and become more efficient in

production. Competition helps to prohibit predatory behaviour, whereby firms charge

excessive prices to consumers who have nowhere else to purchase from. Big tech’s critics

argue that the industry is fundamentally uncompetitive, marred by inconceivable barriers to

entry, monopolistic practices and is characterised by excessive prices and abuses of power.

Regulation’s role, therefore, is to provide incentives for innovative firms to enter the market,

to protect consumers and to ensure a supply of good quality products at fair prices.


Just this week, Apple faces a new class-action lawsuit, accusing the firm – with a market

capitalisation of over $1.2tn – of programmed obsolescence. The lawsuit comes from the

Portuguese Consumer Protection Agency, accusing Apple of deliberately releasing iOS

updates that slowly reduce the performance of an iPhone, forcing customers to upgrade

their devices. Would this happen in a saturated market with high levels of product choice

and competition? Saying that the question of how to ensure competition is a much more

nuanced and divided topic. Political wrangling can have unintended consequences, and in

data-rich, entropic industries like tech, policy can be misinformed or rendered quickly

obsolete.


One way to think about competition is how it works inside companies’ ecosystems, such as

Apple’s App Store and Amazon Marketplace. For example, Apple boasts paying out over

$120bn to app developers since its inception, but critics accuse Apple of Sherlocking -

incorporating some of the App Store’s developers’ best ideas into its own services. Apple

and other tech giants have essentially created their own markets in this sense, of which they

are judge, jury and executioner. They dictate terms of use, how companies connect with

users, and what is or isn’t allowed in the stores. Consequently, they have unmatched

jurisdiction over the services that consumers can access.


Controlling big tech is difficult, though. Axel Voss, a father of General Data Protection

Regulation (GDPR) – four words that will likely make any small business owner quake in

their boots – recently told the Financial Times that the flagship EU laws are already in need

of an overhaul. The German MEP argued, “We have to be aware that GDPR is not made for

blockchain, facial or voice recognition, text and data mining [and] artificial intelligence”. The

global pandemic has seen not only a widespread move to homeworking but also a radical

emergence of new and innovative technologies – technologies GDPR is ill-equipped to deal

with. The fourth industrial (technological) revolution is well underway, and with that comes

an evolving remit to regulate big tech and protect consumers.


Data privacy is also a grave concern. Since Facebook’s data-sharing practices came under

scrutiny following reporting on Cambridge Analytica, consumers and legislators have

sharpened their interest in big tech’s use of data. In response, many companies continue to

review, refine, and clarify their data practices for the alleged benefit of consumers.

However, as consumers become acutely aware of how their data is being harnessed, Apple

has managed to exploit stronger privacy as a competitive advantage. If Apple continues to

succeed, it could well dent Google’s and Facebook’s data-led advertising models or

surveillance capitalism as its critics call it. An intensification of ‘privacy by design’ is likely

to be welcomed by regulators. Despite this, regulation will remain essential to prevent

clandestine behaviour.


Tangentially, big tech's role in news dissemination, consumption, and their increasing

political power is particularly troubling. More than 300 advertisers jumped ship in 2020 - at

least temporarily - from Facebook’s advertising platform in response to the company’s

handling of hate speech. Massive companies such as Coca-Cola and Unilever - previously

some of the biggest ad buyers on the platform - joined a growing group of companies that

pulled their ad dollars from the social network around the NAACP’s #StopHateforProfit

boycott. Over the last 10 years, America’s five largest tech firms have flooded Washington

with lobbying money to the point where they now outspend Wall Street two to one. Big

tech has the ability to ascertain and influence political preference, track your behaviour, and

sell you products you didn’t even realise you wanted.


Add to this that the fact that big tech is top-of-the-game at tax avoidance, and you get a

delightful cocktail of tyranny, greed and malpractice akin to an old-testament verse. For

reference, Amazon paid £293m total tax on sales of approximately £14bn in the UK in the

tax year ending 2020. Facebook paid just £28m on record sales of £1.6bn. The repatriation

of profits and the evasive nature of digital services make taxing tech especially challenging.

Perhaps modern economies are making progress in this area though. Last week, the new US

Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, announced the drop of a contentious part of its proposal

for reform of global digital taxation rules that had been the main stumbling block to an

agreement. This could be a promising sign for a multilateral agreement on digital taxes.

Cohesive reforms are needed on a global scale to prevent the exploitation of havens and fair tax practices.


Critics argue there is a case against tech regulation, however. Increased compliance, red

tape, tax reform and bureaucracy can actually deepen barriers to entry, as it represents

increased costs and reduced profitability for new firms trying to get a foot in the door. In

controlling big tech, regulators may very well extinguish competition for the market. As the

old adage goes, throw them to the wolves, and they’ll return leading the pack. Of course,

there’ll always be the free-marketeers who argue that any form of regulation is repression

and that the market should be left to its own devices to achieve the most 'efficient’

outcome. And equally, if that equates Amazon factory workers being fired for toilet breaks

to ‘efficiency’, maybe they’re right. But, if you’re inclined to think that data privacy matters,

firms should pay fair tax on the profits they make and that consumers and workers

should be protected, maybe you’ll think there’s more to be done.

0 comments

Recent Posts

See All