India set to rein in Big Tech as we enter an era of techopoly

A few days ago when Joe Biden was taking his oath at the presidential inauguration, the world watched the pageantry of one of the most remarkable attributes of democracy, transition of power.

This followed on the heels of another watershed event when Facebook and Twitter blocked Donald Trump’s account, sparking a contention of views about the tech giants’ influence and the ‘accumulation of power.’

Amid the recent salvos of accusations, be it about censorship, privacy or competition, it’s the right time for India to lead and rethink the ethos of its regulatory regime to rein in Big Tech as we enter an era of techopoly (a small number of tech firms wielding monopolistic influence over the supply of digital services).

India’s market size makes it an important place for these firms to capitalise on and this necessitates India to take ex-ante measures in devising the governing rules before these firms become too entrenched with power.

The concern stems from the ability of the big firms like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft to own and operate a digital infrastructure on which the operations of the 21st century shall be stilted thus influencing almost every aspect of public lives at large. With Covid-induced accelerated adoption of digitalisation, the turf of Big Tech is no more mere corporate concern but it is very much a public concern.

The Competition Commission of India is reviewing recent mergers, anti-trust cases and privacy issues, but regulations tend to always play catch-up to the undesirable upshots; policy thinking about Big Tech can’t afford that and need a prescient and comprehensive framework of core essential principles which the players must adhere to. Siloed and uncoordinated regulations will only sacrifice clarity, and allow these tech firms to find workable ways around those.

Social media platforms have serious implications for democracy as they now manufacture loyalty and outrage alike. The debate around free speech and potentially dangerous content is pressing due to the influence it has on shaping political discourse and increasing polarisation.

However, it is strife with complexity, and thus should be approached with caution. The issue lies at the core of the business model of these media platforms which thrives on viral engagement, thus amplifying some content whether fake or inciting, is in the interests of platforms. There needs to be a role separation between being the conduit or platform and curating or moderating content. Suppression or blocking content by the platforms themselves has stoked ire even here in India with regard to hate speech and censorship.

A practical way could be to prevent platforms from being the gatekeepers of content. In a report, Francis Fukuyama of Stanford suggests that for a legitimate and transparent test of what should be censored, curation needs to be outsourced to independent competitive “middlewares” which shall sit atop the media platforms, flagging content and also giving users to choose how information is filtered and presented to them.

Indian regulators are considering preventing e-commerce platforms from selling products by sellers in which they have direct or any indirect equity stake, so that they function only as connectors between buyers and sellers.

The idea going forward should be to enforce a competition policy which makes companies choose their role: either they are the marketplace or they are players selling in the marketplace.