[Chapter-delegates] An alternative tech funding paradigm

[Richard Hill]

The report cited below (and attached) dives into the history of public
investment in technologies at the foundation of Big Tech (in particular
dominant Internet companies), and the imbalances between these investments
and the returns to the public sector. It delves into the problematic labor
and user relations underlining the value-creation machine Big Tech has
assembled, and the perverse social and environmental costs of these
socio-technical systems. It sets out arguments for why Big Tech should be
defunded, and offer potential actions Big Tech companies, governments and
policymakers, tech workers, researchers, civil society organizations, social
movements and individual citizens could take to redirect resources. It ends
by offering prospects for what refunding community could look like, how
another tech is possible.  Here is the link:

 https://techotherwise.pubpub.org/defund-big-tech  

(To read or download the paper, click on the big picture on the above page,
it will open a screen that displays the full text of the paper, and a small
download icon on the right.)

Here are some citations from the paper:

"The origin myth of Big Tech is familiar to most of us: Risk-seeking genius
entrepreneurs start from nothing and pursue a novel idea, from creation
through commercialization and production to scale. According to the logic of
this myth, the venture capitalists who, against all odds, followed their
groundbreaking vision should reap the rewards: they created the value that
fuels the revenue. But, as we explain below, very little of this familiar
narrative is true." (p. 3)

"First, the Big Tech "visionaries" invariably started with technologies
based on research at institutions that rely on significant public funding."
(p. 3)

"Second, despite its pivotal role the State has been systematically deprived
of the rewards generated from its own innovation investments. [e.g. through
tax optimization]" (p. 3)

"Finally, Big Tech companies are so highly profitable because they generate
economic value at enormous scale. [primarily by monetizing user data]" (p.
3)

"As many have pointed out, the fine-grained capture, analysis and
exploitation of personal information to influence behavior on a
population-wide scale in the pursuit of private commercial interests
constitutes a dangerous form of what scholar Shoshana Zuboff (2018) refers
to as 'surveillance capitalism'." (p. 5)

"To compound the problems of mass surveillance, rather than reining in Big
Tech's bulk collection and exploitation of personal information, governments
have sought to take advantage of their massive data stores and big-data
analytic capabilities for State security intelligence purposes, foreign and
domestic." (p. 5)

"Driven by a handful of individuals and shareholder imperatives, the Big
Five are de facto monopolists, integrated both vertically and horizontally,
positioning themselves as unavoidable gatekeepers in their respective areas
of specialization. This market dominance has brought on multiple anti-trust
investigations, by the US Congress, the Attorneys General of 50 US states
and territories, and the EU." (p. 4)

"But the greatest threats that Big Tech wealth poses are to democracy.
Similar to earlier historical periods when high concentrations of wealth
threatened democratic practices, Big Tech companies use their economic power
across a wide spectrum of political arenas. They are among the most active
lobbyists in the communications and electronics sector, pushing the passage
of laws in their favor or resisting those that aren't." (p.4)

"Big Tech companies that rely on advertising erode democratic governance as
well in their undermining of an indispensable feature of democratic
deliberation, independent professional journalism." (p. 6)

Regarding that conclusion, see McChesney's 2014 book Digital Disconnect,
which I reviewed here:

http://boundary2.org/2015/04/08/the-internet-vs-democracy/  

"In sum, Big Tech has shown that digital technologies can offer significant
social value, but in a remarkably short period of time the industry has also
developed practices that now threaten the capabilities of democratic
governance." (p. 6)

The paper goes on to propose solutions, which include:

* Companies should pay a fair share of taxes
* Companies should stop secretive lobbying
* Companies should be more transparent, e.g. re data privacy (or lack of it)
* Companies should offer API access to core functions
* Revive antitrust laws
* Designate some platforms as public utilities
* Require platform interoperability
* Roll back mass state surveillance
* Establish strong international privacy and digital rights regimes

Best,
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Defund Big Tech.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1989229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210206/d4ce4a2e/attachment.pdf>