Difference between revisions of "Possible Solutions"
From BigTechWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "* Outlets and institutions believed national security would be strengthened if Big Tech was broken up and regulated. Fears had grown that market concentration in Big Tech meant Americans were less able to compete with foreign rivals because it meant “less competition and therefore less innovation.” In a fractured tech market, it was believed the various companies would use various resources, develop domestic capacities or if nothing else, choose not to work with Chin...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* Outlets and institutions believed national security would be strengthened if Big Tech was broken up and regulated. Fears had grown that market concentration in Big Tech meant Americans were less able to compete with foreign rivals because it meant “less competition and therefore less innovation.” In a fractured tech market, it was believed the various companies would use various resources, develop domestic capacities or if nothing else, choose not to work with China. | * Outlets and institutions believed national security would be strengthened if Big Tech was broken up and regulated. Fears had grown that market concentration in Big Tech meant Americans were less able to compete with foreign rivals because it meant “less competition and therefore less innovation.” In a fractured tech market, it was believed the various companies would use various resources, develop domestic capacities or if nothing else, choose not to work with China. | ||
* Big Tech could not be trusted to advocate for policies that benefited American security, because their profits trumped their patriotism. Corporate lobbyists for Big Tech were likely to advocate for public policies that support Big Tech’s profit margins, even if they ran counter to U.S. national interest. Columbia warned that in a system with a few dominant players, “efforts to lobby the United States should be seen as highly questionable” because of their dependence on China. | * Big Tech could not be trusted to advocate for policies that benefited American security, because their profits trumped their patriotism. Corporate lobbyists for Big Tech were likely to advocate for public policies that support Big Tech’s profit margins, even if they ran counter to U.S. national interest. Columbia warned that in a system with a few dominant players, “efforts to lobby the United States should be seen as highly questionable” because of their dependence on China.<ref>https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R45178.pdf</ref><ref>https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-national-security-case-for-breaking-up-big-tech</ref> | ||
Latest revision as of 19:41, 22 February 2022
- Outlets and institutions believed national security would be strengthened if Big Tech was broken up and regulated. Fears had grown that market concentration in Big Tech meant Americans were less able to compete with foreign rivals because it meant “less competition and therefore less innovation.” In a fractured tech market, it was believed the various companies would use various resources, develop domestic capacities or if nothing else, choose not to work with China.
- Big Tech could not be trusted to advocate for policies that benefited American security, because their profits trumped their patriotism. Corporate lobbyists for Big Tech were likely to advocate for public policies that support Big Tech’s profit margins, even if they ran counter to U.S. national interest. Columbia warned that in a system with a few dominant players, “efforts to lobby the United States should be seen as highly questionable” because of their dependence on China.[1][2]
