Our World in 2018

deemed unacceptable for any other industry.
But for Silicon Valley and its admirers, the idea
that the most powerful companies in the world
should be left to their own devices makes
perfect sense. It is no secret that the tech
industry views itself as distinct (albeit superior)
to other business sectors. This self-image relies
not engaged in business activities per se, but
rather activities imbued with inherent social
benefit and positive progressive attributes
that transcend traditional business practices.
This self-belief is reflected in their slogans
taglines and statements. Alphabet’s (Google)
motto after all is, “do the right thing.” And
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated in
February 2017, “Our job at Facebook is to help
people make the greatest positive impact…”
This is nonsense of course. Google,
F
.A
other business, they are driven by market
.
Tech firms’ behaviour throughout 2017
bears this out. When faced with increased
scrutiny and skepticism from lawmakers in
the U.S. and EU, Facebook and Google reacted
like any corporation, i.e. they ramped up their
lobbying expenses. Facebook doled out €1.25
million (up nearly 79% from the same period in
2016), and Google spent €5.5 million (up 23%).
Similarly, when confronted with its corporate
tax obligations, Apple has sought ways to
exploit the tax code structures as published
a report showing that tech companies paid
less than half the tax of brick-and-mortar
businesses in Europe Google is no stranger
to this practice either.
Lobbying, influence peddling, and
unscrupulous tax-avoidance. In other words,
standard corporate behaviour.
There is one major way in which Silicon
Valley is different, it relies on the public.
Specifically, the public provides these
firms with their thoughts, pictures, videos,
jokes, insights—in essence their intellectual
.I
and aggregate this information to sell it for
advertisements. Facebook would simply not
work if members of the public did not agree
to provide their content to Mark Zuckerberg
OUR WORLD | 2018
David Ibsen
David Ibsen serves
as Executive Director
for the Counter
Extremism Project
(CEP), which works to
combat the growing
threat of extremism
and extremist
ideology.
Previously, David
served as a Policy
Analyst for the U.S.
Department of State
and as a U.S. delegate
to the United Nations.
Prior to the UN, David
worked as an advisor
for the United Nations
Children’s Fund
(UNICEF).
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
for free. But while the content is provided for
the tech companies. Meanwhile any fallout—
whether terrorism, incitement, or elections
interference—lies at the feet of the individuals.
This is simply inequitable and wrong.
Historically, whenever powerful new
industries emerged, the government
intervened and regulated to limit negative
externalities that impacted the public good. In
turn, corporations traditionally resisted such
evidence of a negative or dangerous impact
on society. Viewed in this context, resistance
to regulatory attempts and promotion of a
“self-regulatory” framework isn’t a surprise.
How many other industries would not wish for
the same, whether auto, tobacco, chemical,
As we look ahead into 2018, we cannot
give into tech’s demands for self-regulation,
especially when the consequences of
regulatory failure are so high. ISIS propaganda
materials readily available online have been
linked to real world tragedies in across the
globe. Surely there will be additional deadly
attacks in 2018 if appropriate action is not
taken to reign-in the misuse of tech services
and platforms by terrorists.
It is time for lawmakers and the public
to demand that these platforms finally
implement industry-wide standards and
policies that ensure the timely and permanent
removal of dangerous extremist and terrorist
material, especially content produced
by groups and individuals sanctioned by
the European Union, United States, and
United Nations, as well as individuals with
demonstrable links to violence. Additionally,
tech must establish measurable best practices
and transparently deploy proven technologies
to prevent the re-upload of materials already
determined to violate company policies. If
tech fails to act, then it is time for regulators
to promulgate measures to force the industry
to take necessary action to protect the public.
These platforms are in this business to
make money. It is up to regulators to protect
the public and ensure general welfare.
Allowing these companies to self-regulate is
not just unwise, but dangerous in this case.
87