This year at The Genesys Partners 2018 Annual Venture Dinner & Forum, hosted at the Union League Club New York, there featured a mock trial, called “Titans on Trial: Do internet giants have too much power? Should governments intervene?” The parties involved were former FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeney, and Rob Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation. Interestingly, this event took place on McSweeney’s penultimate day as FTC Commissioner.
Regardless, the premise was simple; the two parties argued
their opinions on internet regulation, and those in attendance would vote for
the winner. McSweeney argued for an increase in governance on tech companies
such as Facebook and Google, believing this situation to have problems similar
to those related to monopolies in other industries. Atkinson on the other hand
argued that these companies are perfectly fine as they are and that consumers
would not benefit from regulation and possible “trust-busting” of internet
giants.
McSweeney argued that having so few companies own such a
massive portion of the industry, along with their power regarding individual
users’ data, is a detrimental issue for consumers. While she did not argue for
a full-on bust of these companies, similar to early twentieth century
trust-busts, she did call for nuanced legislation that protects users while
also allowing for companies to make profit and continue their technological
innovation. She also argued that these companies can also be considered
advertising companies, along with being tech companies, and that regulation
should be imparted on what sort of content they show.
Atkinson called for a complete libertarian approach, even
though throughout the event he continuously claimed not to be one. His argument
was that because these services are completely free to users, they are not
subject to laws that protect paying customers. Furthermore, he argues that
advertising is simply how they obtain revenue, and since people are voluntarily
joining these networks for zero cost, they do not, in his philosophy warrant
the same protections other consumers do.
Obviously this discussion is timely with the Mark Zuckerberg
testimony, but also with everything we’ve learned in class. Today, to have a
successful online advocacy campaign, there must be some form of social
connectivity through the use of the internet, usually through the companies
they argued about; Facebook, Twitter, and Google. They grant organizations the
capabilities of easily creating narratives to tell stories, group identities,
and to connect likeminded individuals. They also give advocacy groups an easier
opportunity to have successful analytics departments that can strategically use
those findings to their advantage.
Both McSweeney and Atkinson’s opinions, if put into
legislation, would have great effects on consumers, and in turn activists. One,
McSweeney’s would greatly diminish the external forces that influence
e-activism, while also diversifying the market through possible growth, or size
related regulations. While, Atkinson’s would just continue, if not incentivize
fake news and data breaches. This is explicitly important to everything
e-advocacy, and this class is built on.
If either of these ideas went into place the current
landscape of digital mobilization would change. In today’s world, ideas we’ve
learned in class like Polletta’s strategies of storytelling, would not be
possible without a smoothly functioning social network. Peyrot’s vision of
benchmarking success would change.
As for me, I stand with McSweeney on this issue, as did
those who voted at the event. Nuanced legislation is key. Ensuring big business
doesn’t become too big, along with
ensuring best practices for consumers is integral to making sure the people do
better than the companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment