Note: GPPR received a complimentary copy of the book Access Rules: Freeing Data from Big Tech for a Better Future in exchange for our honest review.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials around the world approached Google and Apple for access to data in order to track individual infections and alert anyone in close proximity of an infected person. They refused, touting individual privacy, which forced public health officials back to square one. Even though Google and Apple eventually published anonymized data for public health officials, it was clear that government officials were at the mercy of Big Tech companies when it came to information sharing and data access. After all, Big Tech companies generate massive amounts of profit from extracting raw data and strategically controlling access to this valuable information to maintain a competitive edge. In their new book Access Rules, Thomas Ramge and Viktor Mayer- Schönberger argue that the gatekeeping of information preserves power imbalances and stifles innovation and collaboration at the benefit of a small few, but at the detriment of society-at-large.
The True Story on How Big Tech Rose to Power
The authors begin by debunking narratives crafted by Big Tech companies on how they became dominant in the information technology sector. Big Tech companies first argue that digitization exponentially increased the amount of data available and that, since regular companies lacked access to proper technology and human intelligence, Big Tech companies emerged as the dominant figures in information technology. But, cloud computing and Moore’s Law, which demonstrates that processing capabilities have increased in the last sixty years, have drastically increased the efficiency, affordability, and thus, accessibility of computing technology.
Second, Big Tech companies argue that they house the highest degrees of human intellect that are needed to create valuable algorithms for data analysis. Ramge and Mayer- Schönberger note that academic researchers have actually created many of the popularized algorithms for data analysis, and that data analysis softwares like R are available at no cost. Even Big Tech is quick to share any algorithms they do create.
Finally, Big Tech companies often flaunt that they hire data scientists and mathematicians who “turn data into gold with Einstein-like brilliance” (Ramge and Mayer- Schönberger 34). But, at the end of the day, regardless of skill, there are a limited number of mathematical and statistical tools available for data analysis, and so, this argument also falls short.
Ramge and Mayer- Schönberger note that Big tech companies have created these smoke screen narratives in order to attract job-seekers, uplift their credibility in academia, and develop social hype.
The Dismal Effects of Concentrated Power
It is no secret that Big Tech companies are involved with acquiring companies. Microsoft bought Skype and LinkedIn, Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp, Google bought Waze, and the list goes on. Their acquisitioning efforts are not limited to big companies—as of 2021, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon had taken over anywhere from 110 to 260 companies since their founding days. As much as these companies are to blame for stifled innovation via limited competition, Ramge and Mayer-Schönberger note that they are not the only ones to blame.
Today, due to the large amounts of capital these Big Tech giants possess, start-up founders are not creating competing products with the hopes of being the next big innovator and managing their own companies. Instead, they are interested in the exit strategy of being bought out by Big Tech for large sums of money. In other words, entrepreneurs no longer want to “disrupt” but instead want to “cash out” (57). Without sustainable entrepreneurship, competition is even scarcer than before. How can we turn this bleak situation around?
Revitalizing Competition and Innovation: Data for All
One reason the American government has struggled to crack down on Big Tech has been due to weak antitrust laws. For instance, when calls of breaking up Big Tech companies emerged, Lina Khan, the FTC Chair who has ardently spoken on Big Tech’s unchecked power, noted that Big Tech has not sufficiently violated the weak antitrust laws to successfully dissolve them. Her solution is to treat Big Tech like utility companies, but hyperpartisanship and the short-term monetary benefits from acquisitions for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and even the government stand in the way of such changes being made. More importantly, without focusing on ‘data for all’ initiatives, actions like fines or breaking up companies will not address the root causes of the inequities (84-85).
A data access mandate, according to Ramge and Mayer-Schönberger, would include the following three characteristics: 1) access is granted to all data not subject to legal confidentiality; 2) only large companies need to open their data stores, but small companies that request data access are still expected to reciprocate and give back; and 3) if companies violate their obligations to grant access, they are removed from the data ecosystem.
There are two key issues that arise from a data access mandate: will data be centrally stored or exchanged directly, and is access free for all or tied to certain requirements? The authors offer in-depth guidance on how these issues can be addressed in the sixth chapter of the book.
As seen through the international information cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic, openly accessible data sources can have at-large benefits. Access Rules even advocates for open government data and a transparent public sector in the United States to strengthen democracy. Overall, Ramge and Mayer-Schönberger argue for data decolonization and recognize that data access will not immediately correct, but will definitely disrupt the monopoly power of Big Tech.
Final Takeaways
In 2021, Gallup found that 57% of the American public wanted increased regulation of Big Tech companies. Drastic changes have not been made due to noted obstacles like hyperpartisanship, weak antitrust laws, and cash-out entrepreneurship, but also due to confusion on how to actually regulate these companies. Even record-breaking fines from the FTC hardly make a dent in these companies’ profits. Ramge and Mayer-Schönberger reveal that we have been misunderstanding the problem because we failed to understand how Big Tech truly ascended to power, and that data access is a powerful, unventured avenue which may be the solution we need to weaken their monopolistic chokehold.
As a reader who is not overly familiar with technology policy, I found this book to be extremely accessible in terms of language, content organization, and concrete examples to support their seemingly utopian viewpoints. I appreciated that it contextualized this issue around the COVID-19 pandemic and that it offered insights, regardless of the reader’s familiarity levels with technology policy. Access Rules offers concrete solutions and poses critical open-ended questions. We live in an increasingly digital age, and this book is truly a must-read for all policy students and policymakers.
Alisha Saxena (she/her) is the Editor in Chief of the Georgetown Public Policy Review and is a second-year Master of Public Policy Candidate at the McCourt School of Public Policy. She is a policy intern at the AARP and the Economic Innovation Group, and formerly worked as a Research Associate at RepresentWomen.
