When you hear words such as ‘colonialism’, ‘imperialism’, and ‘hegemony’, you often attribute a historical context to them, as though they are a thing of the past. Moments later, you may log in to a social media platform – say, Facebook – send a picture to a friend, and chat with them. Contrary to widely held notions, the picture isn’t going from you to the friend – but from you to Facebook, and only then to the intended recipient. Facebook, in this example, is privy to your conversation. And you are not alone; billions are conversing in this manner, giving Big Tech companies like Facebook more control than governments. How different is this from colonialism?
Digital colonialism and the Big Tech
In recent years, many lawmakers, around the world, have called for increased regulations on dominant tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. We have all witnessed Congressional hearings featuring Big Tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, Sunder Pichai, and Jack Dorsey. Yet we continue to throng these platforms daily, oblivious to the implications. If anything, we are playing a part, in a kind of neo-colonialism.
The actions of these Big Tech firms have parallels with the modus operandi of the East Indian Company – create a dependency, pit people against one another, sit back and watch the show unfold. In 1612, the East Indian Company defeated the Portuguese and won trading concessions from the Mughals. Soon it went after local traders and put them out of business – something Amazon did after launching its operations in India in 2013. It left brick-and-mortar retailers no option but to pivot to online business, only to soon regulate them and their pricing. Amazon’s preferred sellers got rich, while the rest closed shop.
By the 18th century, the East Indian Company went from trading to politics, to safeguarding its trade interests, and quell any challengers. Raw materials grown by natives were procured cheaply, sent back to Europe for manufacturing, and surplus European products were marketed at a premium in India – hampering the local population’s ability to develop its own industries. Today, tech giants often acquire start-ups to extract value from them, consolidate the value, and create advanced products and services. This nips innovation in the bud, and the talent pool is lost to a huge global corporation, at the expense of the local digital ecosystem.
Facebook invested billions into Jio, making inroads into India’s burgeoning telecommunication industry. At the time, many rejoiced over the returns they made from Jio shares, without looking at the bigger picture. Facebook has made over 82 acquisitions since its inception, steadily increasing its “territories.” Together with its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook has an insurmountable monopoly over the digital market.
How democratic is it then, that the likes of Mark Zuckerberg can send ripples across the world with their decisions? Putting it bluntly, it is not.
This pattern is evident on contemporary social media platforms. What was initially touted as a fun means to stay connected with friends and family, has now turned into a political battleground. CEOs like Jack Dorsey are essentially deciding who stays and who leaves, with their actions echoing in political hallways. The recent tussle between Google and Australia’s news outlets was a tipping point; and the end result could have devastating consequences on how users receive information, what they receive, and most importantly, what they don’t.
Can we put brakes on the Big Tech run?
China has successfully countered Big Tech dominance, but not to the benefit of its citizens. In fact, on the contrary, China’s decision to ban Big Tech stems from its censorship policy of suppressing citizens’ free speech. Democracies like India, too, are cracking down on Big Tech companies for “regulatory” issues. And this is where the situation gets tricky – if the companies cede to government demands, they run the risk of getting used to State surveillance, and other devious plans. If they do not cede, they risk getting banned. And if they are not regulated, their influence will only increase – which runs counterproductive to arresting digital colonialism. So, in my opinion, the solution to the problem is not regulations but self-regulation.
If lesson are to be learnt from historical colonialism, the root cause of our problems are our own assets. In the 1600s, India boasted the largest supply of spices and raw materials, which incentivized East India Company to set up operations. At the time, Indians were oblivious to the power of their possessions. Today, India has the world’s largest online market in the free world. Despite this, India currently receives the least data infrastructure investment from the tech giants, relative to the number of users. This has to improve, and India should make concrete efforts for data localization. It’s about time we understand that if something is free, then we are the product. And this definitely goes for Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, and many more such entities. We are the product in these transactions, and the sooner we learn that, and act on it, the better.
