The power of Big Tech has been growing slowly, and in a way that many of us have accommodated as a necessary infiltration. But the scope of that power—and its costs to the culture we have ordered—have been less transparent.

1. T
First Principles
Big Tech, Privacy, and Power
The power of Big Tech has been growing slowly, and in a way that many of
us have accommodated as a necessary infiltration. But the scope of that
power—and its costs to the culture we have ordered—have been less
transparent.
he ground is shifting quickly beneath our feet when it comes to tech, privacy, and
power. And, although tech companies, their advocates, and even some policymakers,
would like us to imagine these issues are cut and dried, they are not.
In their book The Sovereign Individual [https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-
Transition-Information/dp/0684832720] , published on the eve of the year 2000, James Dale
Davidson and William Rees-Mogg attempt to grapple with the forthcoming technological changes
By Rachel Bovard • April 25, 2020

2. That a private company can now unilaterally decide to simply delete the
promotion of protests it deems unacceptable is a remarkable expansion of its
power over what was once a sacrosanct and constitutionally protected
that the new millennium inevitably would bring. “As technology revolutionizes the tools we use,” they
wrote, “it also antiquates our laws, reshapes our morals, and alters our perceptions.”
This is the dynamic that has been unfolding slowly over the last 20 years, as Google, Facebook,
Twitter, and other social media platforms have transformed how we engage with communications,
culture, commerce, and one another.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed that transformation into overdrive, while exposing just how
significantly power dynamics—between individuals and corporations, and individuals and the state—
have shifted.
Earlier this week, Facebook announced it was removing posts intended to organize rallies protesting
government stay-at-home policies in various states. Initially, a Facebook spokesman claimed the
company was doing this at the behest of state governments. Nearly 12 hours later, the company
clarified [https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/facebook-isnt-actually-colluding-with-state-
governments-but-its-still-removing-protest-posts/] it was independently removing posts “when
gathering[s] do not follow the health parameters established by the government.”
Facebook did not clarify if this meant gatherings in violation of state laws, or executive orders with no
force of law, or merely violations of government suggested practices.
This opens up a new, concerning lane for Facebook, and for tech more broadly. As Big Tech cements
itself as our primary facilitator of communication (as it most certainly has during this pandemic), it
wields outsized power.
Kalev Leetaru at George Washington University recently pointed out
[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/22/facebooks_covid-
protest_ban_renews_censorship_concerns_143003.html] the significance of this shift, and the lines
that blur as a result:

3. freedom. As we cede the public square to private companies, however, those
constitutional freedoms of speech and expression no longer apply in some
cases. Through those private companies, in fact, government officials can in
effect restrict speech they are obligated to protect.
The irony is that less than a year ago, Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerberg-standing-voice-free-
expression/] at Georgetown University where he extolled tech’s many virtues, including how tech
platforms “have decentralized power by putting it directly into people’s hands.” Yet Facebook’s most
recent actions confirm that power of communication for the 70 percent
[https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/] of American adults who use
Facebook, rather than being made disparate, is still very much centralized in the tech platform.
YouTube has also put itself in the position of defining “correct” speech—but this time, by aligning itself
with the World Health Organization. YouTube’s CEO announced
[https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-youtube-ceo-well-remove-any-content-that-goes-against-
who-recommendations] that the platform would remove “anything that would go against World
Health Organization (WHO) recommendations.”
YouTube’s apparent motivation is to keep people safe from misinformation—which makes their choice
of WHO recommendations an interesting one. In mid-January, the organization was telling the world
that COVID-19 wasn’t contagious. WHO also publicly opposed
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china-coronavirus-is-officially-an-
international-emergency/] the travel restrictions put in place by multiple countries and didn’t declare
coronavirus a pandemic until March 11. All along [https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/who-are-
you-a-pattern-of-deceit-at-the-world-health-organization/] , the organization has taken China’s
obviously false claims at face value, allowing the virus to spread.
Yet this is the banner behind which YouTube will fly its “user safety” flag, thus imposing WHO’s views
on its massive user base [https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/] .
Tracking You—For Your Health.

4. Then there is the thorny notion of contact tracing—the way in which public health experts attempt to
contain a viral pathogen by tracing where an infected individual has been, and with whom they’ve
been in contact. Traditionally, contact tracing has been analog, based on a conversation between
patient and doctor.
But the digital age has exploded contact tracing exponentially. It is much more efficient and accurate to
trace a virtual trail, particularly as we leave immense digital footprints wherever we go. South Korea
has typified this type of response, tracking [https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/south-
korea-to-step-up-online-coronavirus-tracking-5109] COVID-19 patients using credit card data,
surveillance camera footage, and cell phone location data. The South Korean government recently
announced [https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200411000500320] they’d be requiring infected
individuals to wear electronic wristbands to ensure patients did not breach quarantine.
It is unlikely U.S. citizens would tolerate such intense and mandatory surveillance measures. But that’s
where Big Tech comes in.
Without being asked, Google already has been sharing aggregate user location data with governments
interested in compliance with social distancing measures. The House Freedom Caucus, a group of
conservatives, sent a letter [https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/status/1248677702875439107?s=20]
to Google raising concern over the “frightfully detailed, specific, and granular” data being provided to
government officials.
Google and Apple recently have announced the development of a contact tracing technology that will
use cell phone Bluetooth proximity data to alert individuals if they have come into contact with an
infected person. The app’s effectiveness depends upon people self-reporting their own positive
diagnosis. Already, security experts have raised concerns [https://themarkup.org/ask-the-
markup/2020/04/14/will-googles-and-apples-covid-tracking-plan-protect-privacy] about false
positives, spoofing, re-anonymization, and “proximity marketing” (yes, you’re just trying to avoid
getting sick, but tech advertisers could still make money). Experts [https://www.protocol.com/oped-
john-ackerly-surveillance-coronavirus] have also pointed out how easy it would be for this system to
be abused [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-could-be-abused-privacy-experts-take-
cautious-approach-to-apple-and-googles-coronavirus-contact-tracing-technology-2020-04-16] .