The Sylvan large tech companies debate considered the following motion:
This house would more tightly regulate the world’s largest tech companies, rather than break them up.
The debate took place on Monday, 1st February. Imogen Pitts proposed the motion and Ina Negoita opposed it.
The proposition supporting the view that the world’s largest tech companies should be regulated rather than broken up
The proposer argued that breaking up the tech giants would cause more harm than good, and that big does not equal bad. The consumer benefit criterion should determine the scope and scale of any regulatory intervention. She posited Zoom as a key example of a new, leading technology that competes with the major players. (NB of course the debate itself was being held on Zoom.)
Google, Facebook and Microsoft all offer videoconferencing, but consumers have voted with their feet in preferring Zoom. The large companies invest heavily in R&D, and this would decline with breakups. US anti-trust actions have broken up large firms, but they tend to find their way back together. We would need to rely on the US government to do it, and breaking up is hard to do!
The opposition against the motion
The opposer questioned who would conduct the regulation and what conditions would necessitate breakups. Tech thrives on disruption, but the large firms today have grown too large for their boots. We’ve seen AT&T, the impact of the GDPR, TikTok and threats of up to a 10% fine against worldwide revenues. We have hostility due to low levels of tax paid, continued presence of harmful content on the platforms, invading privacy and crushing rivals.
Regulators cannot possibly monitor the activities of these firms due to their complexity. Breaking up the firms would allow smaller ones to remain independent. Facebook swallowed the independent Instagram and Whatsapp platforms. Unregulated monopolies have a licence to print money and breaking them up is the only way to address it.
Floor speeches from the audience of the large tech companies debate
Floor speakers added their own perspectives and covered a wide range of related topics. Several employed the analogy of how to deal with a pride of lions, with differing potential remedies, in a lovely thread running through the debate. Big tech’s social and political power harms their users, because their algorithms are purely designed to increase engagement, which often leads to the escalation of harmful content.
Education of consumers could serve as an alternative remedy – we should use our brains and stand up to the exploitation! Several speakers advocated for a multi-pronged policy response to combat the firms’ dominance. Or indeed, simply enforcing existing legislation and holding executives to account personally.
Regulating the tech firms would harm free speech and discourse – was there a time when there were no lions? Yet regulating the space for free speech is different from regulating the speech itself. ‘Free’ big tech services cost consumers through loss of privacy and lack of choice. Algorithmic escalation can be useful if you train the algorithms to show what you want to see! A speaker advocated giving the companies to the people to help foster greater equality.
The opposer’s rebuttal in the large tech companies debate
In her rebuttal, the opposer stressed that regulators cannot control firms with such political power. The firms will not act without facing an existential threat. Technology is super addictive and breakups should be gradual and step-by-step.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer stated that we should guard against technophobia, and innovative small firms do still exist to drive competition. We need sustained R&D, and this has led to useful platforms that connect us. Do we have concrete evidence these firms are damaging?
Result: in the final vote, the large tech companies debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the large tech companies debate that the world’s largest tech companies should be regulated rather than broken up.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.