[ad_1]
The Wall Street JournalMay 31 report that the Department of Justice is preparing an antitrust investigation against Google is, in a nutshell, yuge. And The Washington PostJune 1st report that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) looks the same way Amazon is just as big.
Whatever one thinks of President Donald Trump, superlatives on size are in order for these investigations – if one or both of them turn into lawsuits. And if we even advance, it will probably mean the end of the Big Tech hegemony. (Or maybe, should we say, the end of the current era of technological hegemony. After all, technology is a permanent force, as is the human will to take power – and so somewhere in the future, the Ferris wheel will turn again.)
We could pause to note that the relationship between the White House and the Department of Justice is as close as the relationship between the 45th President and the President. 85th Attorney General. In contrast, the FTC is an independent regulator, although it is noteworthy that Trump appointed the five incumbent commissioners (including two Democrats).
Some will say, of course, that these investigations are the result of Trump's personal animation towards Big Tech – he has regularly attacked Amazon and its founder, Jeff Bezos, may have joined conservative concerns about censorship in Silicon Valley. Effectively, l & # 39; argument The fact that Trump's heavy hand inappropriately affected the DOJ's decision-making was essential for the defense in another antitrust case with respect to AT & T's acquisition of Time Warner in 2016, including CNN's subsidiary. the latter – and the loss of the federal government. (Interestingly, as recently as June 3Trump was still targeting AT & T and CNN.)
Yet these times have an increasingly progressive content …Senator Elizabeth Warren, to name only one of the best Democrats, called for antitrust measures against Google, Amazon and other companies, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is definitely not a fan of Facebook. It is therefore likely that the next democratic presidential administration, whenever it occurs, will maintain the antitrust torch, or even higher. In other words, the fate of Big Tech will likely be determined by whether bipartisan antitrust support replaces partisan feelings toward Trump. Like a big title in Bloomberg News, one of the reticle companies, "Google Should Be Afraid. Very scared. "
At the same time, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a new leader of the new generation of populist republicans, at once tweeted his support for impending antitrust action against Google, the caller "very big news, long overdue." Indeed, in 2017, when Hawley was Attorney General of his state, he launched an investigation in Google. As he said at the time:When a company has access to as much information about consumers as Google, it is my job to make sure that it uses them properly. I will not let consumers and businesses in Missouri be exploited by industry giants. "
On June 1, in a meeting with NBC News, Hawley went one step further: "We should have a discussion on the business model of social media platforms, which have evolved into an ad-supported business model that promotes addiction and the reward of addiction. "
We learned that addiction is not just about controlled substances entering our bloodstream; it's also a matter of computer-controlled images that twinkle before our eyes.
Here we could pause to note that while Google (technically Alphabet) may seem to be less of a social media company, it includes YouTube, which is all about viral videos. And when we consider that big title of The New York Times June 3, "On the YouTube Digital Playground, an open door for pedophiles", we are reminded that the term "viral", as in "virus", is a bad thing, not a good thing. As for Amazon, it's now pretty much everywhere, including its product Alexa, the ubiquitous and ever-present digital deity.
So, Hawley seemed to have all the companies in mind when he wondered if the antitrust was a sufficient remedy against social problems caused by social media:If we divide Facebook into Facebook, which all have the same business model, will our lives, our economy, our society be measurably improved? I do not know that they would do it. "
It's an interesting argument. Beyond the partisan and ideological preoccupations about prejudice, censorship and electoral manipulation – however important those felt on both sides of the aisle – the impact of social media may be more important our spirit and on our common mission.
Indeed, if the ultimate concern was to reorganize our brains with the help of a screen, especially as a sort of fuel for the reflexive political correctness as a means of diverting reality – as argued by this author right here, right here, and right here– then everything quantitative change in the size of Big Tech seems to be much less important than anything qualitative change the way these platforms actually work.
In fact, with his skepticism about antitrust laws, Hawley echoes, while actualizing, the views of one of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt. In his day, TR was fully aware of the abuses of "trusts", as well as the possible remedy under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Thus, although he was not opposed to the antitrust, he believed that regulation was preferable to litigation. In other words, if it were established that an enterprise was acting contrary to the public interest, it was better to enact a rule to prevent it than to file a lawsuit in the hope of separating the offender.
In this spirit, TR has put in place a regulatory framework Guild Bureau within what was then the Ministry of Trade and Labor. (Note that this corporate office was soon to be integrated with the Federal Trade Commission.) In 1907, Roosevelt explained his thought about regulation: "The aim should be to prevent the abuses resulting from the creation of unhealthy and inappropriate combinations, instead of waiting for their existence and then attempting to destroy them by civil or criminal procedure. "
TR focused on the social damage caused by corporate predation, which he saw as both an injustice and a political detonator that could be triggered, with disastrous consequences. As early as 1883, he had warned:
The people are indignant more and more by the actions of these big companies. It is incumbent upon us to see that this feeling takes on a lawful form. … In order to protect the honest capital, we should punish, if we can legally, the act of the dishonest rich for fear that one day, an uprising will happen that crushes both the innocent and the guilty.
Today, Roosevelt's social and political concerns remain as valid as ever. For example, every physical retailer and every main street has its opinion on Amazon. But now there is also the additional question of psychological impact of social media. Over the past century, concerns have been expressed – and sometimes is expressed on the impact of previous innovations in the media, including radio, television and even comics. And the company has developed different legal and regulatory responses, with varying degrees of success.
However, we may be facing the biggest challenge of all: the impact of contemporary technology on human cognition. And if we need a perspective on this challenge, just recall Google's original mission statement – on its website to date, who says:From the beginning, our mission has been to organize world information and make it universally accessible and useful. "
For many, such a Promethean ambition seemed – and still seems – rather cool, not to say worthy of practice. This admiration helps explain why Google has been granted such political grace that in just two decades it has become a nearly 800 billion dollars monster.
Yet everything must pass. And so, pushed by Uncle Sam, the golden age of Google's growth will slide into the pages of history – or at least in his PDF – which will be remembered at the same time as the apogee of Standard Oil and that of Microsoft.
To be sure, these lawsuits will not be slam dunk, and any resolution could be far away. The successful division of the Reagan Justice Department in 1984 by the organization of AT & T was the result of a decade of litigation.
In the meantime, recalling the stakes, it is telling that Google's most famous saying, "Do not be mean", was retirement in 2018. The story of its decision to abolish was perhaps not a legal issue. Nevertheless, discovering the answer would tell us a lot about the heart of society.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributing author and publisher The American conservative. He served as White House political assistant to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Buisson.
[ad_2]
Source link