What if Facebook were the cure for cancer?

It seems like we are finally questioning, in a meaningful manner, what influence companies like Facebook hold over society and what obligations derive as a result of that. We should not be afraid to demand more regulation.

Society’s concern about tech companies is reaching a critical point. We can no longer pretend that it is something to eventually deal with sometime in the future. Quite literally democracy in countries across the world depends on us dealing with this issue now.

For years we’ve heard the reasons we shouldn’t be asking for regulation. These messages have been drummed into us:

1. This is a free market society — let the consumers decide.
2. The product is free so you are the product. Just accept it.
3. Privacy no longer exists.
4. Government-backed regulation is inherently broken — to avoid at all costs. Let them naturally self-regulate.
5. Technology companies are doing so much good. We need to allow them to move fast and break things — a phrase that comes directly from Facebook culture.

Here is another way to think of it.

Let’s assume Facebook was literally, not figuratively, the cure for cancer.

A young Harvard drop-out shows up and says “Hey, I have the cure for cancer. I am offering it for free!” How would society treat that? Would we just swallow the pills and ask questions later?

A quick look at the US FDA site or the EU Medicines Agency reveals that if Facebook were actually the cure for cancer, it would have to go through a huge list of studies and preparation, at least a decade of work at great expense, before it could get to access our data.

“New drug and device approval in the United States take an average of 12 and 7 years, respectively, from pre-clinical testing to approval. Costs for development of medical devices run into millions of dollars, and a recent study suggests that the entire cost for a new drug is in excess of $1 billion.” — Drugs, Devices, and the FDA: Part 1: An Overview of Approval Processes for Drugs

For the cure for cancer then, as a society, we fully anticipate that there is a huge burden of proof on the inventor to convince us that this is safe. This is because it is a big deal that carries with it risks for all of us so we regulate it.

We’ve hit the same point with large, global tech companies. Tech companies need to carry the burden of proof that they will do the right thing and be open to constant scrutiny and regulation.

Facebook and the other large tech companies currently impact society as much as any drug for any cure. Arguably they influence society in a more fundamental way — they stir our thoughts which in turn direct our actions. Let us, at the very least, apply the same level of scrutiny we apply to medicine.

Here is yet another way to of thinking of it:

Tech companies have insider info on us, we should not be afraid to regulate it.

Financial markets have the concept of insider trading.

Insider trading is the trading of a public company’s stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to nonpublic information about the company. In various countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information is illegal. This is because it is seen as unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information, as the investor with insider information could potentially make larger profits than a typical investor could make. — Wikipedia

This is precisely what Facebook and other tech companies have access to. Insider information on us. Our likes, dislikes, innermost fears and desires. They then use that data to target ads on us and change our opinions about the world.

They need to be accountable and they deserve regulation.