Is humanity overdependent on monopolistic social media giants like Facebook and Google?

“The only two industries that label their consumers as ‘users’ are drugs manufacturers and software developers." This line by Edward Tufte explains clearly how social media giants perceive their consumers. Almost every tech sector has monopolistic players at whose mercy users live. 99% of the Mobile OS market is captured by just two companies- Google and Apple. Facebook alone controls more than 70% of the Social Media market. No matter how much we live in the illusion that it is we who control our Social Media accounts but the reality is these giants, through social media platforms, control us. So, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that humanity is overdependent on monopolistic social media giants.

These cash-rich companies have lobbied millions of dollars to legislatures to make favourable rules. Today, millions of businessmen are completely dependent on Facebook and Google for their bread & butter. The recent server issues in Facebook caused huge financial losses both direct and indirect, especially for small businessmen. Even the US government has been dependent on tech giants to spy for them which is why their dominance had so long remained unquestioned. But the same Congress was startled when Russia allegedly used their own ‘domestic’ monopolistic giants to influence voters’ decisions. So now, an app would decide the government of the most powerful country in the world! This compelled not only teenagers, educational institutions and professionals but governments too in rethinking their dependence on few media platforms without which all would feel socially unconnected with everyone.

Thus, it is really important to reduce overdependency. To challenge them, Wikipedia co-founder launched WT.Social, an ad-free social media platform, keeping users’ privacy in consideration. Moreover, startups by innovative and aspiring entrepreneurs do come up every day but they are either acquired by these giants or wiped off from the market. These giants are fond of one famous quote- ‘If you can’t build it, buy it.’ For instance, Apple buys a company every few weeks. Even Google’s parent company Alphabet has diversified from just a search-engine platform to one of the largest personal data storage companies. Today, it has access to almost everything from our photos to locations to watch history to health stats and has future plans to be a leader in every sector from AR Glasses to autonomous cars to Banking Services. With such an approach, huge cash reserves and tech supremacy, they eliminate competition & make it very difficult for new players to enter the market.

Currently, China has sabotaged its own tech companies when it noticed their excess influence on Chinese citizens. Though their measures can’t be imbibed by other nations due to their undemocratic nature but some big nations have started questioning Tech Giants’ supremacy and bringing them under stringent laws. Australia passed a law this year to force Google and Facebook to pay for news content published on their platforms. This worried them as it would mean draining of profits from their reserves to local content creators. America even has a law (Sherman Antitrust Act) that bans businesses from merging to create a monopoly. Recently, the Indian Government also tried to curb the powers of such companies by imposing new IT Rules despite protests by them. So, not only China, rather governments around the world are trying to control the uncontrollable supremacy of these companies.

Some international rules like making big tech companies share data with smaller ones and forcing them against locking in their users, i.e., ensuring interoperability among any app would allow new platforms to compete freely. Moreover, normal citizens and businessmen should diversify their social media presence and unethical rules or decisions of any social media platform must be brought under notice. Domestic platforms should be promoted as it would reduce overdependency and increase competition.

Even the emerging concept of Web 3.0, which is believed to destroy the monopolies of Tech Giants, gives light of hope. To understand Web 3.0, it is very important to understand the concepts of Web 1.0 & Web 2.0. Web 1.0 or the first stage of web evolution refers to the period when there were very few creators; most internet users were viewers and content-consumers. So, no one was able to write any of his/her views on social media because they simply didn’t exist then. Web 2.0 marked a revolution wherein platforms like Facebook and Twitter emerged and users could create their own content and share it with people around the world. But the ultimate power lied and still lies in the hands of platform developers. So, though all are free to express any view or create any content, yet they are always at the mercy of the platform developers. Now, Web 3.0 claims to remove this loophole as it will be a user-run and user-operated platform & create more intelligent, connected and open websites, thus removing the overdependency on monopolistic social media giants.

Conclusion

No doubt, the amazing services offered by Tech firms have been a boon in almost every sector & improved our lifestyles but it all came at a cost. “If you don't pay for the product, then you are the product.” In a world where we aren’t asked to pay for the information available on the internet, we are the product being sold to advertisers. But it becomes more problematic when some tech giants exploit their users’ personal data without proper consent. Few apps in the market also mean they would be better able to manipulate what we think and believe. So, it’s not just the freedom to speak but even the freedom to think that’s in danger. To avoid such centralisation of powers, everyone- citizens, students, small businessmen and government must proactively work towards reducing dependency and making digital environment more competitive.

- Hardik Agarwal