Читать книгу The Unintended Consequences of Technology - Chris Ategeka - Страница 36

Facebook, Google, Amazon, and other companies like them spend a lot of money on lobbying, political donations, and other forms of cozying up to political leaders, to the point that those tasked with keeping them in check are held hostage by the donations from the founders and the companies themselves.

For these companies, it starts with money, which gives them power, which buys them political leaders via donations and other forms of lobbying. This leads to control and influence over the government, which makes it very difficult to pass any meaningful regulation that would keep these companies in check.

Eight men have the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam that marks the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos (Oxfam America, 2017). The report, “An economy for the 99 percent,” shows that the gap between rich and poor is far greater than had been feared. It details how big business and the super-rich are fueling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages, and using their power to influence politics to their advantage.

In places where tech-states have not been able to buy their way into the political system, they will sometimes threaten to leave the region when there are attempts to regulate them. Because of these companies' outsized ability to create jobs and provide services, they still wield a lot of power.

As an example, Elon Musk threatened to move Tesla headquarters out of California at the beginning of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. In fact, Tesla ended up suing state authorities over lockdown after the Fremont factory was stopped from reopening (Reuters, 2020). Keep in mind that these regulations applied to everyone and every company, big and small. Tesla sued local authorities in California and pushed to reopen its factory. They threatened to move the company's headquarters to Texas or Nevada, where regulators are looser. Tesla did end up moving to Texas. At the end of 2020, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed that he had moved to Texas and was rapidly relocating his California-based business empire to the Lone Star State. With a new Tesla factory under construction and two increasingly busy SpaceX facilities in the state, it was not unexpected news (Cao, 2020)

Another example happened in 2019, when Amazon canceled its plans to build its second headquarters in New York after battling with activists and union leaders (Goodman, 2019).

It's becoming increasingly difficult for legislators to regulate any tech-state companies, because of their sheer oversized influence. It's not hyperbole to say that, as of this writing, a handful of tech-state companies are in control, and not the nation-state or government. Here are some examples to back up this statement:

 In 2018, the European Parliament summoned Mark Zuckerberg as the CEO of Facebook to testify in a parliamentary hearing. He was a no-show. At the time of the hearing, the committee shared a now infamous picture of the empty seat and nameplate, stating: “Nine countries. 24 official representatives. 447 million people represented. One question: where is Mark Zuckerberg?” Not much they could do about it!

 In 2021, tech-state companies acted unilaterally and censored the president of the United States and many of his influential followers. Hate him or love him and what he stands for, he was still the president of the most powerful country in the world. Think about that.

 Of course, incitement to violence is a criminal offense in all liberal democracies around the world. There is an obvious reason for this: violence is harmful. It harms those who are immediately targeted. Five people died in the riots of January 6, 2021, in Washington DC. “A police officer was beaten, a rioter was shot, and three others died during the rampage” (Healy, 2021). Violence also harms the institutions of democracy themselves, which rely on elections rather than civil wars and on a peaceful transfer of power.

 To be fair to the tech-state, there is no doubt the former president was given considerable leeway in his public commentary prior to—and during the course of—his presidency. However, he crossed a line into stoking imminent lawlessness and violence. Thus, many could argue that he brought it on himself. We all agree that we need to improve social media, but the tougher question is how we tackle misinformation while also valuing freedom of expression.

The point still remains. A single individual at certain companies can censor whomever they want! That's the outsized power I am talking about.