In Defense of Big Tech

Americans hate successful businesses. We denounce technology companies more than any other group. Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter are the primary victims of public anger and acrimony. Venomous resentment toward them is not due to any specific action they’ve taken, but due to their size and success.

It is no coincidence that the most hated corporations are also the largest and most financially successful. Recent studies by the Pew Research Center highlight just how hostile we are towards these groups. According to data from 2020:

• 72% of adults say social media companies have too much power and influence in politics
• Almost half of Americans (47%) say government should regulate major tech corporations more than it does now
• 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the country

Isn't this true? Don’t we have a right to be concerned about people lying online? Social media sites are polarizing the country, aren't they?

I agree that we have serious cultural problems. Americans are becoming increasingly aggressive towards each other. Fewer and fewer people care about discussing ideas and would rather resort to name-calling, slander, and even violence.

The problems we face are not a result of Big Tech’s supposed "influence" over us. We have accepted bad philosophic ideas -- this is rotting our society. These problems are exacerbated by a corrupt and destructive public education system. Tech companies are not the problem. American culture is.

Our focus is on software rather than on the disastrous ideas being spread by politicians, celebrities, and schools. Ideas make life better or worse, but no one cares to discuss them. Tech companies and social media sites simply provide a platform by which we can communicate our ideas.

First, a quick note on how our culture views large tech businesses and entrepreneurs.

We hate wealthy tech companies

It’s hard to remember a time when the public loathed Bill Gates, but that was certainly the case during the 1990s. As Microsoft rose to dominate the personal computing (PC) world, Gates began to receive increasing amounts of spite. Many began to accuse his company of being too large and influential in the PC sphere. The U.S. government even sued Microsoft in 2001 for maintaining a "monopoly" in the PC market.

It wasn’t until Gates established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that his public image became favorable. After giving away his fortune and becoming a philanthropist, Americans began to love him. Gates was hated while earning his wealth, but loved while giving it away.

This is because Americans equate wealth with coercion, deception, and manipulation. Many believe that to build a successful and productive company, one must take shortcuts, steal ideas from others, or manipulate the public into buying their products.

Not only is this notion patently false - it is destructive. A company can only become as massive as Amazon or Apple if it offers products or services we love. Microsoft is not dragging people off the streets and forcing them to install Windows. Facebook is not holding anyone hostage and forcing them to create an account.

Individuals choose to buy the products and use the services tech companies offer because they make our lives better. Modern life is impossible without Big Tech. Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and video streaming are some of the many tools built and provided by the corporations we condemn.

Rather than vilify tech companies, we should be praising them. Our lives are far better and more enjoyable because they exist. Businesses have the (relative) freedom to pursue profit - and customers benefit. But despite their productivity, tech companies continue to endure abuse from political and cultural leaders.

Politicians and cultural leaders attack Big Tech

Although Democrats and Republicans both engage in consistent attacks against Big Tech, much of the rhetoric originates from conservatives. The fundamental issue is that neither conservatives nor liberals believe in property rights.

Politicians pay lip service to capitalism, to individual liberty, and to the right to keep property. But the assault on tech companies reveals the true conviction of our leaders: once you reach a certain size, you become a public entity and your rights evaporate. What is that size? Who knows. No politician or leader specifically explains why a company’s size matters; they simply argue that a massive corporation must be evil.

Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) are two of the most well-known Republican senators. Both are heavy critics of tech companies, especially social media. During a recent hearing with social media CEOs, Cruz slammed Facebook and Twitter for politcal bias and what he calls "censorship" of certain political ideas. Hawley followed suit in condemning both platforms.

Hawley railed against these companies for "secretly communicating" with each other and for sharing information to conduct coordinated censorship against conservatives and to sway public opinion. Hawley claims that this type of communication is immoral and reflects a concerted effort to suppress conservative voices on their platforms.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, tried to explain that his company communicates to others about "security-related topics" (timestamp 2:40 of the aforementioned video) such as terrorist attacks. This allows Facebook to notify Twitter if there is suspected terrorist or sex-trafficking activity so that other large social media companies can be on high alert while moderating content.

This is a logical strategy considering the terabytes of data that are uploaded everyday. Coordination of this kind benefits users and makes social media sites safer. We should welcome and appreciate cooperation between companies on issues like terrorism and sex-trafficking, so long as it does not involve violating a company’s agreement with its users (i.e. violating privacy policy).

Instead, individuals like Hawley argue that tech companies are secretly meeting and sharing information so that they can simultaneously shadow ban or censor posts made by Republicans. He is not the only one claiming such malfeasance.

Ben Shapiro, popular conservative commentator, recently went on a diatribe regarding the need for government oversight of tech companies who, he claims, are becoming monopolies. This tweet summarizes his view of social media platforms:

Shapiro begins by claiming he is "anti-regulation" then promptly argues for regulation in the next sentence! He and other pundits spend much time speaking about he supposed "censorship" of conservative posts on social media.

Ayn Rand explains the misconception of "censorship" in The Virtue of Selfishness:

"Censorship" is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.

Users enter into an agreement with Twitter. If Twitter determines that a post violates the agreement, they can hide it or surround the tweet with a warning label. Twitter can not violate anyone’s free speech or First Amendment rights. Nobody has a right to tweet whatever they desire without repercussion. Twitter owns the platform and has the right to enforce their contractual agreements with its users.

Conservatives often cry out "I have a right to my speech! I have a right to state my opinion!" Not on Twitter; not on anyone else’s property without their consent.

No one has a right to go onto someone else’s platform and demand that platform to let them post at will. Doing so violates the rights of the platform owner. There is no difference in principle between forcing Twitter to let you post a comment and forcing a doctor to see you as a patient.

People and corporations alike have a right to conduct business with whoever they choose.

Tucker Carlson, prominent conservative talk-show host, is an outspoken Big Tech oppenent who is not shy when sharing his opinions regarding government’s role in regulating software and the internet. Carlson also fears automation and has repeatedly argued for governmental interference in that sphere.

In this exchange with Shapiro (begin watching at 29:00 for relevant topic), Carlson is asked: "Would you… be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology [autonomous trucks] to… maintain the number of jobs in the trucking industry?" Shapiro is asking whether or not Carlson recommends that the government limit or ban self-driving vehicles to keep truck drivers in business.

Carlson responds emphatically "Are you joking? In a second!" He responds to the question in shock, almost implying that it would be silly to answer otherwise. For Carlson, who claims to support capitalism, the government should protect blue-collar jobs, even if that requires intrusion into the market and the regulation of specific tech companies such as Waymo and Tesla (leaders of the self-driving vehicle market).

Tucker is no capitalist and no friend of private property. In fact, there is no difference in essence between how Tucker Carlson and someone like Bernie Sanders, who Carlson berates as a socialist, view the federal government. Both believe that the government should control the economy - the only difference is in the implementation.

More and more conservatives are calling on federal agencies to crack down on Big Tech. Above all, they want government to:

• force tech companies to adopt neutral guidelines regarding political content (i.e. tech and social media companies cannot have a preference towards any specific idea/position on a political topic)
• break apart social media companies (especially Facebook and Twitter) into smaller pieces to avoid a "monopoly"

Essentially, they want Big Tech to become a public domain like roads or water pipes.

Matt Walsh, another popular conservative commentator, says on episode 636 of his podcast (start listening at 1:10 for the relevant bits) "instead of letting social media sites revoke your right to free speech…"

Read that quote again. Walsh claims that social media sites can "revoke your right to free speech". Wait, Twitter can revoke my right to free speech? In Matt’s opinion, yes. When Twitter removes or places a warning label on someone’s post, Matt believes Twitter is violating that user’s free speech.

Matt Walsh is disastrously wrong. No private company has the ability to remove someone’s free speech right - it is impossible.

Unfortunately, people like Walsh are using this piece of misinformation to try and persuade politicians to force new regulations upon Facebook and Twitter. Private property rights exist regardless of a person’s or company’s size and scope.

Just as no one has the right to knock on your door and yell "Let me in! I have to right to my body and my personal space so you must let me into your house!" Your house is your property, and Twitter is the owner of its platform.

When Twitter bans one of Donald Trump’s tweets, that is not a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment does not say "everyone has a right to post on Twitter without repercussions." When you sign an agreement during the account creation process, that document determines your relationship with that service.

If a site determines that a specific post violates the agreement, that is not a violation of any rights. Unfortunately, many Americans believe that it is in fact a violation of free speech.

Tech companies are private entities (although many people such as Shapiro and Walsh are trying to change that). They have a right to their property just as much as you have the right to your house or car. A platform’s size or scope does not determine whether or not it is a public entity.

Even if Facebook maintained a 99% share of the social media market and 5 billion users, it still would not be a public service.

Tech companies seek user engagement

A common misconception is that tech companies are communicating in secret to collectively force a specific set of ideas on its users. Most companies simply want to bring in more users into their network and entice current users to interact more with their product.

"But wait!" Republicans will shout, "Facebook and Twitter are obviously trying to coerce the public into becoming more liberal. They’re creating an echo chamber!"

Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care what your political views are.

He and Facebook, along with every other major social media platform want the same thing: user engagement. Like all major corporations, the end goal of social media platforms is profit so that its employees and shareholders can eat and pay their bills.

Advertisement revenue is the primary form of income for many of these platforms. Ad revenue exists only if users are actively engaged in the product. Increasing the number of users and the amount of engagement per user directly leads to an increase in profit for that platform.

The recipe is:

1. Increase user engagement by recommending articles or items that a user will most likely enjoy (e.g. recommend a Fox News article to a Republican user)
2. User enjoys their experience and subsequently opens the app more frequently and spends more time on the app
3. Advertisers observe an increase in their own website activity as more users click on in-app advertisements
4. Advertisers spend more money to increase their ad presence on the platform
5. Facebook profits 💰
6. Rinse and repeat

The profit motive has led to many new innovations such Facebook introducing its news feed feature in 2006, which lead to an explosion in its popularity.

When a company implements a new feature, updates their interface, or changes their privacy policy, people panic. They imagine hooded programmers working underground in a dark room watching them while trying to manipulate them. Companies make these changes so that we, the users, will hopefully like the app and use it more.

Tech companies are not perfect

We ridicule and condemn tech companies far more often than they deserve, but they are not perfect. There are a number of political positions they take that I disagree with. Silicon Valley often spends millions in support of Democratic party candidates. Joe Biden received ~20x more money than Donald Trump did from major technology companies.

Without diving into specifics, I consider both men immoral and ultimately bad leaders (neither the Democratic or Republican party is interested in protecting individual rights). Consequently, I consider donations to either candidate misguided at best and morally wrong at worst. Ok, back to Big Tech.

Google was developing a search engine in cooperation with the Chinese government called Project Dragonfly, though the project was recently terminated. This custom search engine was indented to be compatible with China’s state censorship provisions. I do not believe that Google should cooperate and do business with evil regimes such as China’s government.

Despite the massive number of potential search engine users living in China, Google should not sit down with China to make a tailor-made product to fit their rights-violating laws.

These are just some of the many decisions by Big Tech that I disagree with. But ultimately, these companies do far more good than bad.

Tech companies deserve reverence, not hatred

We should revere and praise Big Tech. Instead, our political and cultural leaders have joined the rest of society in barraging these companies with venomous attacks.

Most of what we see and hear regarding tech is negative. I hope that in the future more of us will defend these companies by explaining the wealth of amazing things they do and provide.

Big Tech is our friend, not our enemy. Keep government out of their way, and these large companies will continue to produce goods and services that improve our lives.

Update for Jan. 22nd, 2021

Google released a blog post today explaining their opposition to Australia’s proposed legislation to further regulate digital platforms. Google is threatening to halt its search engine service in Australia if the bill, in its current form, passes. I agree with Google.

This law is an absolute abomination and will be impossible, if passed, to implement with any sort of objectivity. The proposed code focuses on a few things:

• Forcing Google and other search engines to pay to show links to users
• Forcing Google and other search engines to give news publishers (but not the average user) a 14 day notice of algorithm changes
• Giving the Australian goverment the final say in arbitrating negotiations between search engines and other entities

How much does Google have to pay per link? Who knows. Will Google have to pay more for a New York Times link than for a link from a smaller site? I doubt any of bill’s authors know for sure.

This bill is a walking logical contradiction precisely becuase it is immoral in principle. Australia has no moral authority to intervene into the operations and inner-workings of Google or any other digital platform. We will keep track of this bill because it carries massive ramifications not only for Australia, but for the world. Governments in both Europe and America may follow with similar legislation in the future.

Update for April 7th, 2021

This week, the Supreme Court released a document containing some opinions on pending cases. Of note is Justice Clarence Thomas’ writings on Big Tech (starting on page 9 of the document), specifically Twitter and its banning of Donald Trump’s account. Justice Thomas suggests that there is legal basis for imposing further regulations upon large tech platforms and/or taking legal action against Twitter for its recent actions (banning, flagging, etc.) regarding Trump and other user accounts.

On page 17, Thomas says "legislatures might… be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation." Like many conservatives, Thomas believes that once an entity becomes large enough, it becomes a "public space" and thus the federal government should assume a role in overseeing and/or moderating content. This notion is immoral and destructive. A private entity does not become a public one simply due to its size or financial success. Federal and state governments have no moral right to assume control of any tech company, nor do they have the right to force those corporations to adopt certain user policies in the name of "fairness" or "equality."

Update for August 11, 2021

Senators have introduced yet another anti-trust bill - this one targeting Google and Apple’s app stores. The bill claims that both companies are acting in an "anti-competitive" nature. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) says "Big Tech giants are forcing their own app stores on users at the expense of innovative start-ups."

This is yet another example of Congress failing to understand property rights and punishing tech companies for being too large and too successful.