From Washington Examiner.com (Aug. 8):
The world’s first cities, according to the Book of Genesis, were built by Nimrod, a “man of might,” after the flood that wiped out nearly all of humanity. They were spectacular — likely vibrant and filled with an innovative spirit. But this progress was wrecked by a group of travelers that had come from the east. Their mission was to get rid of what they considered to be the messiness and unpredictability of the cities — to establish a singular identity and a universal culture.
The group was triumphant. They had built the Tower of Babel. All forms of “otherness” were eliminated. So, their edifice might instead have been termed “The Tower of Conformity.” Fast-forward several thousand years, and we have our very own tower.
Like the eastern travelers, the corporations that comprise Big Tech are seeking to glorify themselves by aggressively forging conformity through the suppression of difference in behavior and thought. Google and Facebook, two of the offenders, were not established for unworthy purposes. Facebook facilitated new connections and reconnections with old friends and colleagues. Google blew open access to knowledge and produced massive economic value.
However, as these corporations grew, their power skyrocketed, and they assumed the status of demigods. They certainly became kingmakers, so much so that they have influenced the outcome of elections. They have essentially become unilateral arbiters of expression — and, perhaps, freedom itself. The eternal, proven principles of human flourishing are beneath them.
…………..
So, what to do with Big Tech? As opposed to the telecommunications conglomerate of yesteryear Ma Bell, its corporations do not “dominate” the market — at least, according to the definitions of the Federal Trade Commission and other consumer protection agencies. The courts have made that point, specifically with respect to Facebook. Moreover, regulation, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, has actually strengthened the large tech corporations because only they can afford, literally, to deal with the regulatory oversight and compliance.
Should regulators have prevented, for instance, Facebook from acquiring WhatsApp and aggregating a massive audience? Perhaps. But can they roll back the clock now without significantly degrading consumer experience and harming many businesses that rely on these platforms? Unlikely.
Importantly, God’s solution to the tower was not to break it up into smaller parts, but rather to scatter it. There are two strategies in this vein that are applicable to Big Tech. One has been pushed by entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan and the other by tech analyst Ben Thompson — though, at their core, they both reflect Genesis’s approach of generating new and varied “languages” and, in turn, fostering individual agency.
First, Srinivasan argues that social networks, because they are the new public squares, possess undue power. He concludes that users need “new crypto social networks where users hold the keys to their accounts and deplatforming is not possible.” In essence, that would mean that users would have the ability to scatter, to take their accounts with them, wherever and whenever they please. Thompson recommends that users’ “social graphs” be accessible across platforms. This would allow not only consumers to move from platform to platform without losing their connections, but also startups and entrepreneurs to create new online cultures and experiences.
Critically, with the technical nature of this discussion, we must never lose sight of the time-honored principles that our society holds dear. Despite what some (especially defenders of Big Tech) claim, technology is hardly ever “objective,” “impartial,” or “neutral.” That’s because technology is not creatio ex nihilo; it is the invention of human beings, who are immutably flawed and incapable of being aware of, let alone eliminating, all of their own biases. As such, a search engine, for example, can develop in any number of different directions. The key questions, then, are what is permitted, what is forbidden, and what principles, if any, influence its evolution?
How the platforms that influence so much of our lives are managed through their own life cycles is no less important than their setup and initial phases. Does the governance of a platform draw upon transcendent ideals or relativistic and ever-changing ones? Is it guided by, in effect, a new religion whose ethical code dwells in the minds of a handful of programmers, or is it open to public scrutiny and amenable to the preferences and sentiments of its users?
There’s no silver bullet for solving the challenges posed by Big Tech. But I take inspiration from the revelation at Mount Sinai, where God appeared in public. God didn’t share the commandments with merely one individual but made the event a spectacle, where “all the people saw the thunder.” As Isaiah said, “From the first, I have not spoken in secret.” Sunlight is, indeed, as Louis Brandeis said, the best disinfectant.
And often forgotten is the notion that sunlight is the best protection of our cherished principles — in this case, freedom of expression, which is central to a genuinely diverse democracy, a democracy that is amenable to a wide range of thought and belief. [read more]
Posts
