Default settings

Is the confrontation between politicians and tech giants gathering pace?

Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other tech corporations serve as strongholds for the United States. Firstly, they are a powerful tool for promoting American interests in the geoinformational landscape. Secondly, they largely underpin financial stability. However, these multinational corporations have become not just large, but excessively influential. They are so powerful that they can essentially fulfil the role of a global — shadow — government. Yet, many still rise up against this.

When the fuss dies down

The outrage against American technological corporations has been brewing for a long time, steadily and consistently, with doubts about the activities of these companies arising largely outside the United States. To speak impartially, the world blinked at the excessive empowerment of communication giants and the rapid penetration of their products into the consumer audience. Many only realised what was happening after Google had taken a dominant position in global markets.  
Lawsuits against Google, Apple, and their industry allies have already become routine in the European Union. The problem is that American corporations are not particularly afraid of legal sanctions as they keenly understand that Europe would suffer significantly if their products were pushed out of its market. Therefore, courts in the EU issue rulings and impose fines that are passionately reported by tabloid publications. However, when the fuss dies down, negotiations commence, agreements are made regarding instalments, delays, and other concessions in the enforcement of court decisions. Thus, any punishment de facto boils down to mere formalism.
In Washington, those vain attempts are met with sheer amusement. Ultimately, up to a certain time, the USA has strengthened its own power through the dominance of its electronic business. 
At the same time, the personal data of billions of people collected by various applications have invariably ended up in the hands of Americans, while tech giants have sworn by all that is holy that they do not co-operate with intelligence services.

Keeping the reason in mind  

The US legal system is rather insidious. On the one hand, it assumes the presumption of innocence, oral statements of the parties in court, and other complex procedures. On the other hand, the US legislation is so convoluted and multifaceted that, if desired, a reason for a judicial decision can always be found.  
Everyone understands well that technological giants have all the means to influence public opinion, social sentiments, and, consequently, politics and the economy. However, proving any of their actions is quite difficult and unlikely to be possible. Therefore, it seems that antimonopoly legislation has been used to curb the dissenters, at least for preventive purposes.
It is common practice in the USA that the reason behind legal action differs significantly from the actual impetus. Thus, the notorious gangster, Al Capone, was incarcerated not for his criminal activities but for federal income tax evasion. He lived beyond his means, which ultimately led to his downfall at the hands of the American authorities. This was because they could not, or perhaps did not want to, charge him for his primary criminal enterprise.

A similar situation appears to be unfolding today with tech giants, particularly Google. A federal court in the District of Columbia has recently fulfilled the demand by the US Justice Department, ruling that the company violated antimonopoly legislation by entering into agreements with Apple and other smartphone manufacturers that required Google to be pre-installed as the default search engine on smartphones. Along with that, the court has acknowledged that Google’s search engine is convenient and, for this reason, has become objectively popular among users.

Business on the hook  

Alphabet, the company that now owns Google, will now have to somehow address the issue, including through not improbable negotiations with the authorities. The latter have virtually put the corporation in a subordinate position, or at least created a platform for business trade or blackmail — each can interpret this in their own way.  
It is no coincidence that the court case, rooted in purely commercial interests, has received a political assessment. “This victory against Google is a historic win. No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law,” US Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.
Not long ago, these corporations were regarded as unprecedentedly independent entities that could largely disregard the state. Has the White House taken revenge? The outcome of this confrontation remains unclear at the backdrop of an emerging risk for users of applications such as Google. 
The thing is that American legislation compensates for its severity and definitiveness with the possibility of entering into deals with the government. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that this could be the eventual outcome. Official authorities may leave the commercial aspects of these tech giants unaffected, allowing them to continue as monopolists. In exchange for this possibility, they would have to share personal data, which they collect worldwide, with the government, or provide other services to Washington — naturally, in an informal manner. 
As for privacy while using applications, social networks, and other American-origin platforms, subscribers have a risk of completely losing it. The preservation of confidentiality raised doubts before, but now it almost certainly will cease to exist. Overall, it is a reason to seriously consider one’s personal information strategy and online behaviour.

Donald, but not the one 

Google has acquired far too many unchecked powers — so immense that it is capable of affecting American politics. Elon Musk, another prominent figure in the information space, has recently queered the pitch for his counterparts at Google. On his account, he posted a screenshot claiming that Google had configured its search engine against the Republican presidential candidate. When searching for ‘President Donald’, the results displayed links relating to another well-known Donald — Duck — a funny cartoon character in numerous iconic Disney animated films. It may seem like no big deal; yet such details contribute to the public perception of politicians. Then again, technology giants nowadays possess virtually limitless capabilities to manipulate public consciousness.

TO THE POINT

Geopolitical tool

We are opposed by tech giants from unfriendly states, as remarked by Vladimir Pertsov, Deputy Head of the Belarus President Administration, during a meeting with ideological activists of Minsk Region, “We had constructive meetings in Gomel and Brest. A Media Community Forum was held in Mogilev. The participants heard the messages of the Head of State concerning the organisation of information and ideological work, public awareness campaign, and counter-propaganda. Should any negative developments go under our radar, all resulting vacuums will be instantly filled by people who can no longer be called representatives of alternative journalism. These definitely include at least biased media, and at most the emergence of information and psychological special operations centres that pursue certain goals in the interests of states and special services that finance them,” Vladimir Pertsov stressed. According to Pertsov, we are confronted by an effective high-tech machine, ‘technology giants run by corporations and people that pursue global goals, including geopolitical and economic, in relation to the collective East as a whole, not only our country’, “They use digital capabilities as a tool to communicate their geopolitical strategic goals. Therefore, it is impossible to be naive about this.”
By the way, last year alone, Belarus’ Ministry of Information restricted access to 3,388 destructive resources (according to BELTA).  

By Vladimir Volchkov