The technology sector has developed an unprecedented market in which policy makers are scratching their heads as to how to properly regulate these massive tech companies. Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have a combined market capitalization of $5.5 trillion, making them key players in the success of the NASDAQ during COVID-19 (Yahoo Finance, 2020). This past July, the leaders of the big 4 tech giants took to the stand during a congressional hearing regarding fair market share competition and the associated security risks that coincide with mass consumer data collection (Romm, 2020). The Democrats focused heavily on the sheer financial power the companies have over their competitors, while the Republicans emphasized the supposed political censorship Facebook and Google exhibit against conservative-based news and media.

When asked about the absence of competitors within the tech industry, Mark Zuckerburg and Jeff Bezos did their best to avoid any self-incriminating comments while arguing that they operate under proper regulation. Zuckerberg stated, “We compete hard. We compete fairly. We try to be the best” (Romm, 2020). Facebook’s recent acquisition of Instagram is a prime example of how a big tech company can leverage their massive earnings to not only increase their market share, but control the market. Bezos piggybacked off of “Zuck,” openly demonstrating that Amazon turns a blind eye to using data from third-party sellers to increase the revenue of their own products, saying,

“What I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business. But I can’t guarantee you that policy has never been violated” (Romm, 2020). It is clear that Amazon and Facebook are skating on thin ice when it comes to playing within the rules, however the extent to which lawmakers can properly regulate these companies is still up in the air. The amount of consumer-specific data that Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook hold is unlimited, and continues to grow exponentially with the expansion of new products, web design, and other new features.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, did not receive as much criticism as Zuckerburg and Bezos, however he was questioned about the recent uptick of up to 30% commission for in-app purchases and subscription fees that supposedly help to “fund the entire app ecosystem” (Romm, 2020). While politicians are aware of the power these tech giants hold over the market and respective consumers’ decision making, they are struggling to balance out the playing field among other technology competitors.

Given the rapid growth of the technology industry, it is crucial both political parties come together to institute the proper regulations to ensure fair competition and promote economic growth within the tech sector. Not only are Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook reaping unseen profits, but their consistent collection of consumer data has also raised a myriad of interlaced ethical and privacy issues. 

Chief Executive of Google, Sundar Pichai, admitted that they collect data from their users to personalize ads and automate the Google search bar. However, he did reject the notion that Google manually changes consumer search results unless they include extreme violence or otherwise harmful content. The issue with tech companies collecting consumer data on a mass scale is two fold. First off, constantly monitoring online consumer activity allows algorithms to emotionally engage consumers to the point where it promotes hate, anger, and “amplifies biases within the data that we feed them” (The Social Dilemma, 2020). Algorithms require a historical data set and a clear definition of success (RSA, 2018). For tech companies, consumer data includes the number of clicks on a certain product or post, time spent on a page, etc. With profitability being the key element of success, the algorithms are specifically designed to increase profits at all costs. As a result, legal, ethical, and moral issues are glossed over when these algorithms are implemented. Tech companies have leveraged their massive collection of data to effectively engage and dominate consumer decision-making through user-specific content and ads that consistently update to their preferences. The second issue with limitless online surveillance lies in fear of uncertainty to the extent that constant spying from technology companies may ultimately influence the way we perceive, think, and act. While the congressional hearing brought to light many risks associated with Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook’s privacy regulations and fair competition with rivals, to what extent did it resolve current issues associated with the ethical validity of the tech giants’ current operation? When will policies be developed in order to properly financially and socially regulate these companies and what will such guidelines include?

While there is a moral dilemma regarding data privacy and consumer automated social media content, even more dangerous is the destructive political influence these major technology companies have over impacting elections. Over the past two years, the amount of countries with false campaign information on social media platforms has doubled (The Social Dilemma, 2020). Misinformation combined with a lack of dual party representation among social media companies facilitates severe political division, turmoil, and social unrest. Many right-wing representatives believe major tech companies such as Facebook and Google are “systematically biased” against conservative views (Fung, 2020). Congressman Jim Jordan (OH-R) states, “We all think the free market is great. We think competition is great. We love the fact that these are American companies, but what’s not great is censoring people, censoring conservators and trying to impact elections. And if it doesn’t end, there have to be consequences” (Romm, 2020).

In order to combat such perceived censorship, President Trump signed an executive order calling the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) to revise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Mullin & Harmon, 2020). As it currently stands, this stipulation has protected tech companies from prosecution over their social media content (Fung, 2020). The unprecedented market capitalization of internet companies has brought up a multitude of regulation and censorship issues previously undiscussed among lawmakers. Consequently, the FCC has been reluctant to regulate technology companies due to the consumer data and privacy complexities that are deeply intertwined with social, political, and financial implications.

Regardless of political views, it is apparent that Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have taken out their respective rivals by capturing full control of the technology market sector. Their profit-seeking algorithms consistently cater to consumer preferences, sucking users into a feedback loop of learned helplessness glueing us to our screens (Harris, 2019). In terms of what comes next, it is imperative that Congress maintain a sharp eye on the big 4 tech giants as they increase their market share and respective earnings. The conversations of facilitating the proper financial, political, and privacy regulations need to progress into attainable laws. If Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook continue to operate at their current rate of profitability while raking in extensive user-specific data, their ability to dominate the economy as monopolies, manipulate consumer purchasing preferences, and dictate political elections is limitless.

Sources

Big Tech's giants take heat at congressional hearing on their power, influence | CBC News. (2020, July 30). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/congress-hearing-tech-ceos-1.5666958

Fung, B. (2020, October 15). FCC chairman says he'll seek to regulate social media under Trump's executive order. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/tech/fcc-section-230-ajit-pai/index.html?utm_source=twcnnbrk

Harris, T. (2019, December 05). Our Brains Are No Match for Our Technology. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/digital-technology-brain.html

Mullin, J., & Harmon, E. (n.d.). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Romm, T. (2020, July 30). Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google grilled on Capitol Hill over their market power. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/29/apple-google-facebook-amazon-congress-hearing/

RSA. (2018, October 17). The Truth About Algorithms, Cathy O’Neil [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heQzqX35c9A

'The Social Dilemma' - What is the social dilemma? (2020, September 30). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.thesocialdilemma.com/the-dilemma/

Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://finance.yahoo.com/