The Hidden Influence of Big Tech on Antitrust Discussions
Written on
The Growing Influence of Big Tech
In recent discussions surrounding antitrust legislation, major tech companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have opted out of direct engagement. Notably, during a hearing led by New York State Senator Michael Gianaris last September, these corporations declined invitations to present their cases. Instead, organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which describes itself as "radically pragmatic," stepped in to defend the interests of Big Tech.
Alec Stapp, representing PPI, provided a vigorous defense of these companies during the hearing. However, when questioned about the organization's funding sources, Stapp hesitated, stating, “In my role in research, I’m not privy to the full donor list or who gives how much money.” It is important to note that Apple, Facebook, and Google are among PPI’s benefactors, a fact that Gianaris finds troubling. He remarked, “If Big Tech wants to defend itself, it should have the courage to do so.”
As antitrust sentiment grows stronger, these companies are increasingly turning to third-party organizations to advocate on their behalf. These entities not only disseminate favorable arguments but often do so with limited transparency regarding their funding, thereby shielding the tech giants from direct scrutiny. This creates a perception of credibility while allowing Big Tech to distance itself from the arguments being made.
What Should Have Happened at the Big Tech Antitrust Hearing
In this video, explore insights on the anticipated outcomes and missed opportunities during the Big Tech antitrust hearings. The discussion delves into the implications of tech giants' strategies for influencing public perception and policy.
Section 1.1 The Role of Think Tanks
PPI is not alone in this endeavor; other prominent think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, receive funding from major tech companies. Despite this financial backing, Brookings asserts that donations do not dictate its stance. In a piece suggesting critical questions for Congress to pose to Big Tech executives, the think tank included seemingly innocuous inquiries, such as, “What is your greatest hope about technology today?” A more honest acknowledgment would recognize that financial contributions often come with expectations.
When approached for comment, a Brookings spokesperson emphasized the institution's policies designed to prevent outside influences from affecting its work. However, the use of the term "inappropriately" raises questions about what constitutes acceptable influence.
Section 1.2 The Transparency Challenge
The existence of dubious disclosures in articles and testimonies is just the tip of the iceberg. Behind closed doors, a multitude of briefings and informal discussions take place, often without public knowledge. One journalist reflected on their interactions with think tanks funded by tech companies, noting, “I was trying to think of negative things they said about those companies. Couldn’t.” This realization prompted the journalist to reconsider their connections with these organizations.
Tech companies also engage in “grasstops” strategies, recruiting small businesses to write favorable opinion pieces in local media. Stapp himself contributed to the MIT Technology Review, arguing that "Congress made a lousy case for breaking up Big Tech," only revealing PPI's funding sources after the piece was published.
Chapter 2 The Ripple Effects of Influence
The influence of Big Tech extends beyond think tanks. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently found himself embroiled in this web of influence. According to BuzzFeed News, he received a secondary salary from the Aspen Institute for a project funded by Facebook, prompting Brooks to resign after the news broke. Before his departure, he had even praised Facebook's Groups feature in a blog post on the platform.
U.S. v. Google: Inside the Biggest Tech Antitrust Trial in Decades
This video provides an in-depth look at the monumental antitrust trial against Google, discussing its implications for the tech landscape and the potential outcomes for the industry.
The challenges posed by opaque funding practices are significant. Despite the disclosures available, the total amounts donated by tech giants remain elusive. Nirit Weiss-Blatt, author of an upcoming book on the tech backlash, pointed out, “We don’t have full transparency. Thus, we don’t know how much money is flooding the zone.”
The tech companies possess the right to contribute to think tanks and influence discussions about their practices. However, as long as misleading disclosures continue, they undermine the accountability processes they have inadvertently created.
Senator Gianaris summarized the issue succinctly: “The problem is the tech giants are incredibly powerful and disproportionately so. They set up either fake groups or co-opt more legitimate ones to do their bidding in the realm of public discourse, in a way that is not transparent and pretends it’s more objective than it actually is.”