In his latest book, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Techopen Window jou,rnalist Franklin Foeropen paints an alarming picture of an era in which only a few giant technology companies – Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon (aka GAFA ) – exert extraordinary power over an information economy. They can disrupt business models, decimate industries, and even destroy them by siphoning revenue.
Foer writes that big tech is influencing not only what we know but also what we think and do by collecting vast amounts of personal data. Artificial intelligence is used to prod us towards consumption constantly. Foer claims they have created a world where people are constantly watched and distracted. He writes that “the tech companies are destroying a precious thing, contemplation.”
Foer, a former editor of The New Republic and a current staff writer at The Atlantic, was a guest speaker recently at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Corporations and Society Program. Foer was asked to elaborate on what is wrong with the big tech-created world and how it can be fixed.
Your book was published 50 years after Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders. This book also exposed advertisers’ and marketers’ misuse of behavioral psychology to manipulate consumers during the analog era. Is it the same issue today, but with more sophisticated tools?
Data is the critical change. It is much easier to get into our heads and manipulate us. It is highly personalized and exploits anxiety. We’re always with technology. Your phone may be nearby even if you’ve turned off the TV.
Your book mentions that Silicon Valley has always been driven by contradiction. It promises breakthroughs for the individual but ends up serving as a monopoly
The Internet has the potential to be as democratic as promised. It also comes with a dream that ties everyone together into one unit. This impulse ultimately drives it towards monopoly, conformism, and a stifling of freedom. It does not necessarily lead to this but points in the right direction.
You claim that the concentration of power among the tech giants “squashes diversity of opinion and tastes.” Will this ultimately stifle innovation, which led to the rise of these companies
These companies invest so much in R&D, and their machines constantly teach themselves new skills. It does, however, stifle innovation across the economy. Capital is directed to a few well-established firms rather than being dispersed throughout the economy to encourage innovation in various companies. It is not suitable for an economy to be controlled by a few large companies.
Their ability to control markets can be problematic for consumers and companies dependent on these platforms. They can choose winners and losers. As they grow, their products will win on their media. Google and Amazon are almost compelled to give their products top placement. Facebook will give more weight to its algorithms as it produces original videos. These platforms’ monopolistic effects will eventually crush the entities that depend on them. This is evident in journalism, which relies heavily on Facebook and Google.
Many of the negative impacts of technological innovation you describe in your book are unintentional. Is there a need for a new way to teach business ethics and how to use innovation responsibly
There’s a severe shortcoming of computer science and engineering education. Engineers and software developers are taught to build efficient systems. However, they rarely understand the human element of these systems or the ethical and political dimensions of what they create. These companies are making a lot of decisions with a high impact. If it’s all about efficiency, then they will make bad decisions.
However, I am reluctant to place too much ethical responsibility on these companies. I want to train leaders in ethics, but capitalism is capitalism. It isn’t easy to imagine that profit could be sacrificed for the greater good. This is where government policy comes into play.
Regulation would allow these companies to continue doing what they currently do but with less damage
Shockingly, the country has no comprehensive data protection law. This is the first step: creating a new regulatory agency through legislation. I want to see a new regulatory regime that examines surveillance issues as intertwined with monopolies and recognizes that administration acts as a mechanism for trusts to protect their incumbency.
There is no silver bullet to solve the problem. It’s so significant and widespread. Regulating is essential, but I also think a cultural shift among consumers is necessary. Social change must be a comprehensive process.
You have advocated the creation of a federal agency for data protection that would protect not only the privacy of consumers but also the free flow and exchange of information over the Internet against corporate influence. How would it work?
The Europeans have shown the way in many ways, even though I’m afraid I disagree with some of their ideas. I wouldn’t say I like the idea of a right to be forgotten. It goes against many of my First Amendment principles. Individuals should have a more significant say in using their data. We could set it up. It’s not easy.
We’re seeing the public lose faith in institutions and turn against them. Is a backlash towards big tech inevitable? What could trigger it?
The Russian hacking into the election is a seminal moment. Facebook’s trust has been eroded. This is a warning to these companies. Eventually, large institutions lose public confidence and fall out of favor. This is pretty much a part of American history.
