Written by: Oscar de Castro
In recent years, the tension between democratic governments and big tech companies has grown increasingly pronounced. The relationship between these entities has evolved from cautious collaboration to outright confrontation. The heart of the issue lies in the immense power and influence that tech giants wield, which often contradictsthe public interest. The question now facing political leaders worldwide is how to assert their authority in the face of this challenge and protect the democratic processes that these companies increasingly seek to undermine.
One glaring example of this tension occurred earlier this month when EU Commissioner Thierry Breton reminded Elon Musk, CEO of X (formerly Twitter), of his obligations to moderate content ahead of an online discussion with Donald Trump. Instead of responding with a commitment to abide by the rules, Musk replied with a meme—a response that was as juvenile as it revealed his apparent disregard for regulatory authority. Musk’s attitude in this instance is emblematic of a broader problem: the superiority complex that some tech executives display, acting as if they are above the law. This attitude is especially troubling given Musk’s influence, not only over social media but also over critical infrastructure. For instance, thousands of his Starlink mobile internet systems are currently in use in Ukraine, many by the military. In 2022, following an online dispute with a Ukrainian diplomat, Musk threatened to stop paying for these terminals—an action that could have had dire consequences in the context of an ongoing conflict. Although he later reversed his decision, the incident underscored the extent of his control over critical services and his willingness to use that control as leverage.
The example of Elon Musk is just one among many instances where tech executives have used their power to push back against governments. Meta (formerly Facebook) and Google both pressured the Australian government over a media law designed to make them pay for news content. Google threatened to cut off its search engine entirely, a move that would have had significant repercussions for Australians who rely on the service daily. Ultimately, Google struck deals with media companies to avoid the law’s penalties. Meta, on the other hand, took a different route by shutting down its news service in Australia, depriving millions of access to critical information. These tactics reveal a troubling trend: when faced with regulations that do not align with their business interests, tech companies are willing to use their platforms and services as bargaining chips.
This trend is not limited to Australia or Europe. Last year, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, threatened to pull his company’s operations out of Europe if the European Union proceeded with its efforts to regulate artificial intelligence. Although Altman later backtracked and announced that OpenAI would comply with the new regulations, the incident highlighted the growing willingness of tech leaders to challenge governmental authority openly. The fact that these companies feel emboldened to make such threats points to a disturbing imbalance of power between the private sector and elected officials. This imbalance is particularly dangerous because it allows tech companies to effectively veto regulations that are designed to protect the public interest.
The consequences of caving to these threats are far-reaching. The public interest suffers when tech companies successfully pressure governments to abandon or water down regulations. For example, removing access to news sources, as Meta did in Australia, deprives the public of vital information and undermines the role of journalism in a democratic society. Similarly, the threat of cutting off internet access in a conflict zone, as Musk hinted at in Ukraine, puts lives at risk and jeopardizes national security. These are not mere business decisions; they are actions that directly impact millions of people’s well-being.
Given the stakes, political leaders must push back harder against these tactics. They must recognize that their independence and authority are at stake and that capitulating to tech companies sets a dangerous precedent. This means not only enforcing existing laws but also enacting new legislation that curtails the power of these companies and ensures that they operate within the bounds of democratic governance.
One area where this pushback is already happening is in the United States, where Google is currently facing an antitrust lawsuit. For years, Google has argued that it offers a superior search product to consumers for free, implying no harm in its dominance. However, Judge Amit Mehta has highlighted three key ways in which Google’s monopoly distorts competition. First, Google’s control over 90 percent of the search market allows it to extract super-profits from advertisers. Second, its business model, which relies on surveillance advertising, compromises user privacy—a priority that rival search engines might otherwise champion. Finally, Google’s massive payments to Apple and other tech companies to make its search engine the default option on their devices effectively buy off potential competitors, stifling innovation and entrenching its market position.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the future of tech regulation in the U.S. Possible remedies include a massive fine, the scrapping of Google’s distribution deals, or even a breakup of its parent company, Alphabet. While the latter option is the most radical, it is also the most necessary. Breaking up Alphabet by separating Google’s search engine from its Android operating system and Chrome browser could restore competition in the market and reduce the company’s overwhelming influence. Another potential remedy would be to split Google’s ad sales business from its search engine, which could curb its ability to exploit user data for profit.
However, these legal battles are just one part of the broader effort to rein in big tech. Political leaders must also resist the increasingly common threats from tech executives to withhold investments or pull out of markets. These threats, which go beyond traditional lobbying, are a direct challenge to the sovereignty of democratic governments. If left unchecked, they could erode public trust in both government and the tech industry, creating a situation where the latter wields more power .
In conclusion, the time has come for elected officials to assert their authority over tech companies and ensure they operate in the public interest. Whether through fines, regulatory measures, or the breaking up of monopolies, governments must take decisive action to curb the power of these companies and protect democratic governance. The stakes are too high to allow tech executives to continue dictating the terms of their engagement with governments. As the tech industry continues to grow and evolve, so too must the resolve of our political leaders. They must make it clear that threats, whether delivered through memes or in closed-door meetings, will not be tolerated. It is time to draw a line in the sand and defend the primacy of democratic governance in the tech sector.
https://www.ft.com/content/439d3583-79fc-46bc-bfdc-18a9a9338f98
https://www.ft.com/content/cbfa63de-66b5-4543-a2ef-c6c7397700a6