Activism: an effective tool against the mighty tech giants
Large tech firms have a tumultuous relationship with societies, in which they operate. Gone are the days when tech firms enjoyed latitude and free-rein — relatively speaking — in exchange for job creation, economic growth, and world-class innovation. This dichotomy began to materialize over the past five years, and it can be attributed to several recent scandals involving nearly all the tech heavyweights, including: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Uber. These scandals range from political interference in elections to breach of citizens’ right to privacy and even tax evasion.
Despite the seriousness and intractability of these scandals, governments across the world have been quite slow in responding to the amoral behaviour of tech firms through regulation. In fact, governments react only when deliberate violation of law is suspected. Furthermore, it seems that governments are constantly playing catch-up with the tech firms, especially in addressing the negative externalities of disruptions caused by “technological innovation.” While traditional institutions and processes of public policy have been caught flat-footed, activism has proven to be an effective tool for providing the much needed checks and balances for the tech sector.
Amazon’s recent humiliating backtrack on establishing a second headquarter in New York is case-in-point for the effectiveness of activism in stopping tech giants from proceeding with projects that are not in the best interest of their host communities. Advocacy groups in Toronto are engaged in their own battle against Sidewalk Labs — or more specifically, the involvement of Sidewalk Labs, an Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, in redeveloping the currently derelict Quayside neighbourhood into a smart city.
While the project specifics of Amazon’s HQ2 in New York and the redevelopment of Toronto’s Quayside by Sidewalk Labs are dissimilar, the underlying issues are inherently similar: lack of transparency and accountability in “dealmaking”; lack of meaningful public consultation; lack of appropriate provincial and federal regulatory backstops that protect the public interest; and a general lack of leadership in resolving conflicts.
The face-off between advocacy groups and Amazon — which has amassed considerable “soft” or informal power through its recent lobbying efforts — sets an important precedent for advocacy efforts in Toronto against Sidewalk Labs. While much is to be said about how activism prevailed in New York, I would like to focus on two considerations:
- Framing the issue is instrumental: advocacy groups have been recognized in the news media and tech blogs for framing the issue in a manner that mobilized the public, as well as politicians from various orders of government, against the Amazon project. Advocacy groups spread a simple message: tech firms are tone-deaf and continue to misread the public sentiment. This message was contextualized in a broader argument that while major deals between tech firms and the government often lead to job creation, economic growth, and innovation, these ventures almost always have negative externalities for the host communities. Furthermore, issues concerning the lack of accountability, transparency, meaningful public consultation, and open dialogue that can clearly outline the public benefit of these joint ventures are paramount to any projected economic benefit. This narrative was consistently adopted and spread by a multitude of advocacy groups, resulting in unanticipated public and political backlash against Amazon HQ2 — which was backed by important decision makers in various orders of government.
- Advocacy groups can provide leadership when conflicts arise: when public perceptions turn against joint ventures between governments and the tech-sector, a power vacuum is created due to poor “issue management” from tech firms, as well as their government partners. This provides an opportunity for advocacy groups to unite and provide leadership in uniting citizens, and even political actors, against the status quo. The significance of this opening is often underestimated; advocacy groups can leverage a leadership vacuum to mobilize communities and even political actors against these joint ventures, which are legitimized by the formal power of state institutions and the informal power of large tech firms.
