The use and abuse of data by Facebook and other tech companies are finally garnering the official attention they deserve. With personal data becoming the world’s most valuable commodity, would users be the platform economy’s masters or its slaves?
Prospects for democratizing the platform economy remain dim. Algorithms are developing in ways that allow companies to profit from our past, present and future behavior — or what Shoshana Zuboff of Harvard Business School describes as our “behavioral surplus.”
In many cases, digital platforms already know our preferences better than we do, and could nudge us to behave in ways that produce still more value. Do we really want to live in a society where our innermost desires and manifestations of personal agency are up for sale?
Capitalism has always excelled at creating new desires and cravings. With big data and algorithms, tech companies have both accelerated and inverted this process.
Rather than just creating new goods and services in anticipation of what people might want, they already know what we would want, and are selling our future selves.
Worse, the algorithmic processes being used often perpetuate gender and racial biases, and could be manipulated for profit or political gain. While we all benefit immensely from digital services such as Google search, we did not sign up to have our behavior cataloged, shaped and sold.
To change this would require focusing directly on the prevailing business model, and specifically on the source of economic rents. Just as landowners in the 17th century extracted rents from land-price inflation, and just as robber barons profited from the scarcity of oil, today’s platform firms are extracting value through the monopolization of search and e-commerce services.
To be sure, it is predictable that sectors with high network externalities — where the benefits to individual users increase as a function of the total number of users — would produce large companies. That is why telephone companies grew so massive in the past. The problem is not size, but how network-based companies wield their market power.
Today’s tech companies originally used their broad networks to bring in diverse suppliers, much to the benefit of consumers. Amazon allowed small publishers to sell titles (including my first book) that otherwise would not have made it to the display shelf at your local bookstore. Google’s search engine used to return a diverse array of providers, goods and services.
Now, both companies use their dominant positions to stifle competition, by controlling which products users see and favoring their own brands (many of which have seemingly independent names). Meanwhile, companies that do not advertise on these platforms find themselves at a severe disadvantage. As Tim O’Reilly has argued, over time, such rent seeking weakens the ecosystem of suppliers that the platforms were originally created to serve.
Rather than simply assuming that economic rents are all the same, economic policymakers should be trying to understand how platform algorithms allocate value among consumers, suppliers and the platform itself. While some allocations might reflect real competition, others are being driven by value extraction rather than value creation.
Thus, we need to develop a new governance structure, which starts with creating a new vocabulary. For example, calling platform companies “tech giants” implies they have invested in the technologies from which they are profiting, when it was really taxpayers who funded the key underlying technologies — from the Internet to GPS.
Moreover, the widespread use of tax arbitrage and contract workers (to avoid the costs of providing health insurance and other benefits) is eroding the markets and institutions upon which the platform economy relies. Rather than talking about regulation, then, we need to go further, embracing concepts such as co-creation. Governments could and should be shaping markets to ensure that collectively created value serves collective ends.
Likewise, competition policy should not be focused solely on the question of size. Breaking up large companies would not solve the problems of value extraction or abuses of individual rights. There is no reason to assume that many smaller Googles or Facebooks would operate differently or develop new, less exploitative algorithms.
Creating an environment that rewards genuine value creation and punishes value extraction is the fundamental economic challenge of our time. Fortunately, governments, too, are now creating platforms to identify citizens, collect taxes and provide public services.
Owing to concerns in the early days of the Internet about official misuse of data, much of the current data architecture was built by private companies. Government platforms now have enormous potential to improve the efficiency of the public sector and to democratize the platform economy.
To realize that potential, we would need to rethink the governance of data, develop new institutions and, given the dynamics of the platform economy, experiment with alternative forms of ownership.
To take just one of many examples, the data that one generates when using Google Maps or Citymapper — or any other platform that relies on taxpayer-funded technologies — should be used to improve public transportation and other services, rather than simply becoming private profits.
Of course, some would argue that regulating the platform economy would impede market-driven value creation. They should go back and read their Adam Smith, whose ideal of a “free market” was one free from rents, not from the state.
Algorithms and big data could be used to improve public services, working conditions and the wellbeing of all people. These technologies are currently being used to undermine public services, promote zero-hour contracts, violate individual privacy and destabilize the world’s democracies — all in the interest of personal gain.
Innovation does not just have a rate of progression; it also has a direction. The threat posed by artificial intelligence and other technologies lies not in the pace of their development, but in how they are being designed and deployed. Our challenge is to set a new course.
Mariana Mazzucato is professor of economics, innovation and public value at University College, London (UCL), and founder and director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under