Right now, Congress is discussing whether big tech companies should be required to share their data if requested. A hearing titled “Platform Transparency: Understanding the Impact of Social Media” was held by senators and other high-ranking politicians on Wednesday.
During the hearing, some people explained why they think companies should be required to share their data when requested, but we don’t know whether that will even pass. We all know this proposal can be thrown in the trash. Regardless, requiring companies to share their data can have both positive and negative effects on the tech world as we know it.
Like any large part of the legislature, we cannot say that there will be an outcome. The major changes in policy, as they pertain to major tech companies, are the multiple ripple effects that permeate the ocean that is the tech industry.
Companies Don’t Really Tell Us Much, And It’s Annoying
Now, as it stands, we are getting pieces of data from major tech companies. The performance numbers only come out through certain circumstances, and that’s pretty disappointing. Companies are clear about their numbers only when they are operating Really good, T-Mobile says, “We’ve just reached 100 million homes!” And Samsung says we’ve just sold over 3 million Galaxy S22 Ultras”. However, we never hear them say “Yeah, we’re doing fine; can’t complain.” If we want to hear anything other than major milestones, we’ll have to wait for older information from other sources.
It’s not just about performance numbers. Big tech companies have vast amounts of data about their users, and people want to know how it’s being handled. Big companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft have lots of banking, location, and other types of data, and it bothers some people that no one can know how it’s being used. The fact that companies can keep everything behind closed doors doesn’t sit well with anyone.
First, let’s talk about the good things to come
Right now, it is difficult to say whether things will objectively be better or worse if this law is passed. However, we cannot deny that something good will happen that comes from outside.
Companies will need to be more transparent about what is happening
It should be common knowledge that big brands are never 100% clean and bookish. To stay on top of the pack, companies often engage in shady business practices. Meta didn’t become a trillion-dollar company by keeping its users’ data off the market. This is because companies have full freedom to ignore any kind of transparency.
“YouTube, TikTok, Telegram, and Snapchat represent some of the biggest and most influential platforms in the United States, and they offer almost no functional transparency in their systems. And as a result, they cover almost all of the scrutiny and support that comes with it. Avoid criticism.” This is a quote from Brandon Silverman during the hearing.
If the law is passed, companies will have to explain their inner workings; Good and bad. They won’t be able to speak PR and pretend they’re not doing anything wrong. If they are doing shady exercises, they will need to be disturbed.
This includes whether they are doing any sort of anti-competitive practices or if they are selling user data illegally. These actions are taking place behind closed doors, and it will give the law and the people the keys to unlock them. If tech companies are doing obscure practices, they will, apparently, be pressured to stop those actions.
People can have more access to performance numbers (and not just good ones)
Right now, it’s hard to get direct access to simple performance numbers from major companies. We hear when a company is kicking butt in a particular quarter, but that’s not the only number that matters. Analysts need to offer a complete picture of how the tech industry is performing, and they can’t do that if companies are only giving them one color.
The performance numbers are more important than ever due to current chip constraints. Having access to a wide range of performance numbers will help analysts know how it is doing and how long it will last. It just doesn’t help to know when a company is doing well.
It Could Help Fuel Competition
In contrast to glorifying their successes, even large companies tend to overestimate their weak spots. However, this isn’t a bad thing or some shady business practice. Really, it just makes good business sense.
However, when talking about these major companies, we are talking about the industries which are heavily dominated by these big players. Which Upstart mobile operating system will succeed Android or iOS? Which new video-sharing app is going to go hand in hand with YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok? New companies are now competing with billion-dollar and trillion-dollar companies; They just need a break.
If the public has more access to these companies’ data, people will be able to know in which areas they are performing poorly, which markets they are missing, or which products are not resonating with customers. New companies may know where they need to strike to sideline the giants. It can help those small businesses gain more ground and expand where other companies don’t.
But, what about its bad side?
If companies are required to share their data, there will be some negative impacts. While the law may prohibit some anti-competitive practices, it may actually aggravate others. Any company may pay a research firm or private entity to obtain information about the inner workings of a competing company.
Using that information, Company A can talk poorly to Company B or take advantage of its shortcomings. Also, in a worse-case scenario, Company A gains insight into the inner workings of a much smaller company. Company A can take advantage of Company B and squash Company B before it has a chance to grow.
Another potential downside is that this law may violate the Fourth Amendment. For this law to pass, as Daphne Keller put it, there must be some clear guidelines on what types of data people can access. People should not be able to ask for sensitive data about the company or company secrets that created the company.
Under the Fourth Amendment, any person (in this case the company) has a right to his house, papers and effect against unreasonable searches and seizure. If this law violates the Fourth Amendment, it could mean countless legal battles between the country and companies. Furthermore, even if the guidelines have been laid down, we cannot rule out a malicious company detecting and exploiting loopholes. Whether or not requiring tech companies to share their data is constitutional will be a major thing going forward.
in conclusion
This hearing was just that: a hearing. It was to be seen whether this legislature could hold any water. Basically, if Final Law is a video game, this hearing was a casual spitball session, with developers looking to see if they want to make a game, too. It cannot be said whether we will pass this law to the next stage or it will fade into oblivion.
Yet one can tell that, if this law is passed, there will be some notable changes. The kind of data the big tech companies lock down is really heavy stuff. They have information like sales numbers, which entities they are selling data to, and more. Most of who we are is just a series of 1’s and 0’s on a server somewhere. No company will be able to lock down that kind of data. So, this law can have some big benefits.
But, we cannot ignore the potential negative side effects. As time goes by and this becomes a law, we will undoubtedly see this change to a great extent. By the time it reaches its next stage, it may be something completely different. We need to keep an eye on it, whether they are good or bad, changes will be major.
