Too big to fail? Google/Facebook/Twitter case for organic dismantling/reforming part 1
As we pointed out in the Broken Social Media Scene, business models of the tech giants of today fully exploit their collective monopoly for tracking and monetisation of our data. Their automated algorithms are hacking into our psychological vulnerabilities to keep us engaged and distracted, allowing for aggressive advertising and erosion of the individual’s will. This is AI at its purest — the algorithms target our most primal instincts due to their strongest response, as discussed in Broken Social Media Scene.
It is chilling, but not unexpected. It is also hard to blame anyone in particular for seizing this incredible business opportunity, arising from the current, wild-west period of the IT industry. Yet, from a power balance standpoint, it is deeply skewed — how is it that a handful of companies got to own all of the world’s data? Not only that but also trade it for hard cash, becoming the richest firms in the world.
At the moment, the monopoly looks untouchable. Yet, we have all witnessed the fall of the dominant search engines of the 90’s with the emergence of Google — a small player with better technology. Not to mention the fall of real empires.
This time around, again, it is likely that better, hopefully fairer, technology will be the key to dismantling the current status quo and shuffling the space in the progress cycle of mankind. The battle we’re facing is extremely uneven — David vs Goliath is an understatement. History, however, has many times shown that “too big to fail” turned out to be “too heavy to make a turn”.
The taboo of the IT giants.
A lot has been said about the dysfunctional nature of today’s social media — with its fake news, abuse, manipulation, addiction patterns and rogue monetisation. Yet few, if any, of these studies, point to the causes of the current mess, aside from stating the obvious dominance of Facebook, Google or Twitter and their moral obligation to “do something about it”. That, however, is more of an effect, than the cause of what we’re witnessing today.
Let’s think again, what is it that’s really bothering us?
We lack privacy and need a more humane social media. We want to be heard, respected and compensated fairly for our data online, residing under our control. We don’t want to be manipulated or lied to. We want reputable information sources and good filtering of feeds. We need trust and accountability online.
There is however one fundamental problem…
The “we” does not exist…
Let’s have that soak in for a minute. Let me rephrase it:
There never was an “us”…
If you are confused by this statement, please bear with us until part 2 of this article. For now, let us just say that a lot of tech commentators and privacy advocates seem to be overlooking this one fundamental structural fault of today’s internet.
The fallout from Cambridge Analytica scandal, its repercussions and the ongoing commentary around it is a great manifestation of this misunderstanding.
In the above video, published as early as Septemeber 2016, their CEO Alexander Nix is openly delivering a conference format speech about psycho-manipulation using targeted, emotion-inducing messaging, depending on the target’s profile, harvested from large data silos. He is pleased to point out that these methods enabled presidential candidate, Ted Cruz to raise from a mere bystander to the runner-up in the final round of the election. It is very clear that Cambridge Analytica isn’t keeping it under wraps, as to what their line of business is — “we target your vulnerabilities and ride them until you submit”. Given the later backlash, the video seems almost uncanny — so this was not a covert operation?! There is a simple and a complex answer to this question.
The outraged point to the fact, that the data harvesting was done in a dubious manner, which is likely correct. Yet, the real pathology is the fact that is was all available in one place, under the custody of a single company. The rest is a natural consequence, waiting to happen and it’s hardly covert, as the video indicates. Everyone needing to influence public opinion would appreciate such service, Ted Cruz, the Russians, the Brexiteers, the Germans, the advertisers, and probably the aliens if they were doing business on Earth. Thus, providers of it will likely be numerous and what we’re seeing is just a tip of the iceberg.
The public outcry over mass scale online psychomanipulation is a lot like a rude awakening in a ditch after falling asleep at the wheel. We may be hurt, the car is a wreck, but it is not exactly a surprise after 12 hours of constant driving.
In response to the scandal, in the above TED talk, Carole Cadwalladr questions the moral composure of the big tech leaders, who facilitated these manipulative tools. Her speech rattled many around the world, and for this alone we have to applaud her courage and efforts. However, the exact message conveyed, as well-meaning as it is, is more of a call for applying a band-aid to a festering wound, as it calls out the tech gods by name to stop letting us down.
If so, are we really to rely on individual moralities of Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey to make online space more or less manipulative? Will this ever be a foundation for anything robust? What if they get replaced by real baddies one day?
They run multibillion-dollar ventures, with enormous complexity and business dependencies. They will always be toeing the line between socially acceptable and most profitable, with a board of directors, big investment and numerous pain and pressure points. After each new scandal, they will likely be more careful and introduce little improvements here and there.
Yet, the problem is deeper, systemic and lies in the design of the internet itself. Remember? There is no “us”.
