'Many, while performing the foulest deeds, use the fairest words." How fitting that a quote by Greek philosopher Democritus can still describe the hypocrisy of big tech (Facebook in this case) today. While tech titans were quick to "save the day" and permanently silence former US president Donald Trump to prevent further violence before an inauguration, a move welcomed by many, far worse evil is still allowed to spew out misinformation and hate on these very same platforms.
So, the question begs to be asked: What did blatant censorship of an unpopular ideology achieve except set a dangerous precedent for free speech and expose the double standards of big tech? There's no arguing that content which incites violence or spreads disinformation has no place in society and should be immediately flagged and removed as Twitter did when a Chinese Embassy account made a controversial tweet recently. But a permanent ban was spared.
Without regulatory oversight and any real competition, Facebook has been allowed to run amok as judge, jury, and executioner for well over two decades. While this was not a problem when these platforms were in their infancy and mere disruptors, they have now become global institutions. Being forced to abide by strict privacy regulations in the European Union and answering at antitrust hearings in the United States are relatively recent events. Yet, the populace of the Global South (lower-income countries) is just waking up to the need for curbing big tech's power. Unfortunately, the reality is that in these places, these same companies openly collude with leaders far worse than Mr Trump in their quest for profit and bringing online the last few billion still excluded from the internet.
And what better example than last week's coup in Myanmar. On Thursday, the self-installed military government ordered a ban on Facebook after a civil disobedience group swelled to 200,000 users as the first signs of organised protests emerged. Ironically, a few days prior to the shutdown, the same platform was being used by state-run MRTA to post propaganda and by the military to provide daily updates. Yet Facebook has not made a single statement as it now attempts to balance placating democracy activists and cooperating with the new regime to get back online.
Sadly, those in power fail to realise these bans will only drive people to other platforms without changing their views. Like Trump supporters, who migrated to Telegram, the people of Myanmar flocked to Twitter on Friday, before it too was blocked. It's likely they will soon be congregating elsewhere. This fact, or perhaps a lack of will, could be the cause of the Thai government decision to backtrack on banning Telegram last year after it learned the app was being used to share protest locations and coordinate movements. Things don't always end so happily though. Last year in Vietnam, Facebook caved to demands that it filter out anti-government critics. Today, censor squads openly patrol private groups and coordinate takedown campaigns against citizens.
Although CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared that "Facebook stands for free expression" and its COO, Sheryl Sandberg, testified before US Congress that the company "would only operate in a country when we can do so in keeping with our values", the ground reality is starkly anything but.
But the big tech debate is not always political.
Recently in India, Facebook-owned WhatsApp ran full-page advertisements on the front page of a half dozen papers in a show of force of its commitment to privacy. Just days earlier, it had announced that users would be forced to accept new data-sharing laws which would give Facebook access to their chats. The marketing ploy failed as users made a dash for Telegram and Signal, leaving WhatsApp red-faced as it agreed to delay its rollout. Now, the Indian government is asking another tough question of big tech: Why does WhatsApp's new data privacy policy apply in India but not Europe?
If one thing is clear, it is that big tech needs some sort of shake-up. As global entities, who once championed themselves as the pillars of an open internet, big tech cannot be allowed to operate on different principles given the location. Whether the solution is a globally-agreed rulebook or increasing competition by limiting big tech's ability to buy out potential threats, the time has come for unregulated monopolies of digital platforms to end. And at the rate this year has started for big tech, it promises to be a turbulent one.