Restraining the Recalcitrant Tech Giants

For the last few days, web content of some of the leading newspapers of Australia was being published with a note above each article that read, “Facebook has banned the sharing or viewing of our news articles on its platform. For independent journalism straight from the source, download our app and sign up to our newsletters”. This was the outcome of a recent spat between social media giant Facebook and the Federal Government of Australia, which through a new law has mandated the social media giant and Google, to share revenue with local news content providers through an arbitration panel driven negotiation safety net that would prohibit tech giants from using their monopolistic positions to impose their conditions on local news providers. Even though some headway has been made by both sides to diffuse the tension, this incident is not an isolated one.

A few days back, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom stated that drivers of global ridesharing giant, Uber, operating in the UK, are to be defined as ‘workers’ and would be entitled to ‘paid holidays’ and ‘minimum wages’. Certainly, this verdict has not gone down well with Uber or other similar app—driven ride sharing companies. Both the above-mentioned cases have severe ramifications for other countries as well since they may follow similar suit against these tech giants.

In the same league, a recent expose by news agency Reuters revealed how Amazon was flouting FDI norms in India to continue giving preferential treatment to those retail entities in which it had financial stake. As per revelations, almost a third of goods sold by Amazon were being executed by just 33 companies, while a mere 35 sellers were accounting for a whopping two-third of the sales of Amazon. As per Reuters, “that meant some 35 of Amazon’s more than 400,000 sellers in India at the time accounted for around two-thirds of its online sales”. Consequent to this, Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) recently petitioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi to create a regulatory authority for the e-commerce sector for keeping an eye on these e-commerce companies that regularly flout norms.

And of course, one has to mention the recent series of spats between Government of India and microblogging company Twitter over the issue of several Twitter handles and tweets that were active during the farmers’ protest and the Republic Day riot in the capital city, and were fomenting violence and spreading falsehood. The Government of India sent a list of 1178 handles, red flagged by agencies, for being operated by Pakistani and Khalistani elements, to Twitter for blocking. However, what was appalling was the resistance of Twitter to block those handles. What was found strange was that in the name of giving a platform for so-called ‘expression of free speech’ to so-called activists, journalists and media entities, Twitter was literally abetting the disinformation campaign of nefarious elements which are known to be inimical to India’s national interest.

And yet, surprisingly, when similar violence happened in the Capitol Hill in the US, Twitter was extremely nimble footed to block the Twitter handle of, none other than, President Donald Trump. The explanation given by Twitter then was the following “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them – specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter – we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Such was the outrageous level of double standard that was displayed by Twitter that it brought to the fore the fundamental question of whether these platforms are indeed neutral platforms or have their own views, vices, preferences and agenda that precede the interest of host nations. What irked India more was how the CEO of Twitter had even endorsed some of those tweets through the ‘like’ button, that were in support of the so-called farmers’ protest, which invariably raises questions about neutrality of people running those social media entities.

Over the last one decade, social media platforms, e-commerce companies, technology-based service providers and search engines have become indispensable parts of ubiquitous life not just for individuals, but even for governments of sovereign States. It is incredibly difficult, at times, to reach out to the wider mass and disseminate information at a faster pace without the use of social media platforms or VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) based messaging applications such as WhatsApp. It is also increasingly becoming difficult for India’s upwardly mobile middle class to think of a day without the aid of the likes of Uber or e-commerce companies like Amazon or Walmart-owned Flipkart. One cannot deny that in certain ways these tech-driven modern days wonders did have a positive impact on society.

However, the fundamental question that needs deliberation is whether these companies, most of which are US-based, are above the law of the land where they operate? Are they to decide on their own as to which of the rules of business they would abide by and ignore the rest? What if they continue to undermine the writ of democratically elected governments of sovereign States and continue with a “take-it-or-get-lost” kind of attitude? What if in the name of backing “freedom of expression” they continue to push a specific lobby driven agenda that may not be genuinely spontaneous and has been designed to hamper governance or create law and order issue? What if the social media platforms continue to use news content of media houses without adequately paying the content creator, thereby creating a scenario where original local content creators are driven out of business? What if complex algorithms are applied to deliberately push specific content while reducing traction and reach of other kind of contents? What if predatory pricing techniques of e-commerce companies devastate the brick-and-mortar shops and establishments in a country? What if OTT platforms in the name of “freedom of expression” promote content that is derogatory, obnoxious, hurtful to religious sentiments, have specific bias and can potentially create deep rooted social rift?

However, the challenges are not restricted to these only. In today’s arena, when apps are operated through smart phones or laptops, be it the e-commerce companies, the payment gateway companies, the social media companies or any other app such as ride sharing apps, each of them have unbridled access to personal information of users that may include everything from one’s bank account details to personal credentials, and even an entire gamut of confidential information. The question therefore that arises is who owns that data and where should that data be ideally stored? Here comes the issue of data sovereignty, which means that data generated from a country is supposed to be the property of that country and not of the multinational tech giants who are taking access of that data and then storing it perhaps elsewhere away from the host country.

These are some of the pertinent issues that governments of several sovereign states, and not just of India, have been facing. It has to be understood that the application based and technology driven digital economy is still at an evolving state and thus many of the issues arising out of the obnoxious behavior of some, if not all, tech -based service providers may not have been anticipated earlier. The panacea though, is not to ban those service providers as is done by China. Instead, there is a pertinent need to work on a series of regulations and make sure they are complied with.

Incidentally, even as this article was being written, reports emerged of Government of India coming out with draft rules under the aegis of Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code, 2021) with stringent provisions that would make it mandatory for social media companies including the likes of Facebook and Twitter to remove controversial content within 36 hours after a legal order or an order for removal of such content has been issued by Government. The draft rules also have provisions that makes it mandatory for the concerned companies to assist investigative agencies within 72 hours, once a request for the same has been made for the same.

The legally enforceable draft rules that would be applicable to all digital and online media sites also categorially states that, ‘A publisher shall take into consideration India’s multi-racial and multi-religious context and exercise due caution and discretion when featuring the activities, beliefs, practices, or views of any racial or religious group,”. For the purpose of oversight, the Government has decided to create a committee with representatives from Ministry of Defence, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home, Information and Broadcasting, Law, Information and Technology Ministry, and Women and Child Development Ministry. As per the available information, while IT Ministry would be governing affairs of digital and online platforms, issues related to OTT based streaming platforms or web-based content would come under Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

It has to be kept in mind that today, just as these tech giants have had positive impacts across the world, at the same time regulation of these companies who behave like as if they are a ‘law-unto -themselves’, are increasingly becoming a headache for not just Asian but as well as European countries and even US. UK based The Guardian in an article published in July 2020 and titled, ‘Too much power’: Congress grills top tech CEOs in combative antitrust hearing’, writes, ‘The US’s top tech bosses were told they have “too much power”, are censoring political speech, spreading fake news and “killing” the engines of the American economy, at a combative congressional hearing on Wednesday.’

The article which came after a Congressional hearing further states, ‘The historic hearing in Washington saw Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google’s parent Alphabet appear before members of the House judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee and face intense questioning from lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.’

Ultimately the issue boils down to whether the interest of ‘shareholders’ of these tech giants is more important than the interest of the ‘stakeholders’. Beyond a point perhaps, these organisations don’t belong to any nation from their heart. Revenue imperatives drive everything. Often, they tend to suppress criticism by pledging investments worth billions of dollars. While investments are welcome, it cannot be an alibi for flouting rules.

Especially in the realm of social media platforms, what simply cannot be denied is the imperative role that lobbies and PR agencies may possibly play to push a specific narrative or use chatbots to artificially amplify a specific content or discussion. In case of OTT based content likewise, certain patterns have often been seen of select platforms making it a point to push such content that tend to deliberately hurt sentiments of ‘Hindus’, who for long, by virtue of being liberal and tolerant, have been the softest target for denigration and mockery. Whether there are invisible hands playing their part to push such contents is also an issue that cannot be entire ignored.

Against this backdrop, the Modi Government’s decision to bring in a new set of rules is extremely laudable and chances are high that a regulatory authority for e-commerce sector too would see the light of the day in the times to come. One issue that has to be kept in mind is that most of these tech giants have an attitude of disdain and indifference based on the presumption that they have penetrated so much into the lives of people that no government would be able to boycott or ban them. The best way to counter this attitude and to make them comply with rules of the land, is to make sure that they have enough competition in hand so that their presumption of indispensability is adequately taken care of.

While there are not many things in the Chinese model which India should emulate, it has to keep in mind that in the realm of developing home grown digital and social media giants, China has created a robust architecture because of which even the absence of global tech giants (many of which are banned in China) is not much felt there. From WeChat, which can be termed as China’s answer to WhatApp and Instagram, to Weibo, which is like the Facebook of China, to Douyin and Meipai, shopping sites like Xiaohongshu, to live streaming site Yizhibo, Tencent or Youku, which is termed as the Youtube of China, Beijing has created the ecosystem for massive investment in digital media platforms and made them viable alternatives.

Given the fact that India already has a $190 billion IT industry and a reasonably good ecosystem for start-ups, there is a pertinent need for India’s own home-grown tech giants as well as Government to come together and create a coalition to not only develop a whole range of digital media platforms but to also incentivise their growth. Perhaps many already exist who just need a small nudge from the Government or India’s own industrial giants. In the recent past, during the spat between Government of India and Twitter, India’s own home-grown Koo App, an alternative to Twitter, got sizeable traction and showed how the country need not be dependent on foreign platforms alone. Likewise, during the midst of Indo-China face-off in Ladakh, when Government of India rightly banned Chinese apps like Tik Tok, many Indian homegrown short video apps like Josh, Taka Tak and Mauj have since then become quite popular, so much so that Josh App got a $100 million from the likes of Microsoft and Google during fund raising. Not only that, there is also perhaps a need for an India specific sovereign venture fund to make sure that the next Flipkart of India need not be sold over to a Walmart or a Paytm need not look to Chinese company like Alibaba for fund raising. Also, as part of the larger dynamics, India has to invest heavily into chip making and quantum research. The decision of Government of India to create a National Research Foundation to build a research ecosystem can play a key role developing research in chip making, artificial intelligence development and quantum research.

Given the enormous amount and effort being made by the Modi Government to make India a global manufacturing hub in the times to come, and strive for self-reliance in component or intermediary manufacturing, expectations are high that India would surely be able to create its own home-grown versions of digital platforms to take on the global competition and also to keep the tantrums of global tech giants on leash.