Image Courtesy of flickr.com.
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Big Tech. For many, the phrase conjures an Orwellian setting of data collection and surveillance, where the consumer is preyed on by Silicon Valley. A highly public series of data leaks and scandals over the last few years certainly hasn’t helped the situation — in fact, according to a recent survey in Axios, public trust in tech corporations has plummeted to an all-time low, with social media companies ranked lowest out of any business category.
But is our dystopian view of Big Tech obscuring a more complicated reality? What issues are really impacting consumers, and how can we combat those issues? The Tory spoke with Princeton students, club leaders, professors, and alumni, to learn about their interactions with technology and explore how consumers might take back their agency.
For some Princetonians, the problem with Big Tech boils down to a single word: privacy. “These behemoths monetize consumer data by selling off not only a database of consumer data, but also the query tools for access,” argues Lawrence Cheetham ‘67, a veteran of the tech industry who has worked as a systems analyst and consultant. “This is not the static, innocent sharing of customer lists to like-minded industries to cross-sea products — these are invasions of privacy that lay bare many a client’s personal life, interests, and interpersonal relationships.” Many students agree: one sophomore* finds the way Big Tech gathers and sells information “startling,” while a first-year engineering student worries that it puts users’ privacy “in jeopardy.” “I kind of fear that that’s the cost people accept when they use these generally free services,” adds Michelle Woo ‘22, president of Princeton Women in Computer Science. “The cost is their privacy.”
Princetonians aren’t alone in their apprehension: a 2019 survey by PEW Research Center found that almost 80% of Americans are concerned about the way companies use their data. But should privacy be consumers’ main concern when it comes to Big Tech? Dr. Jérémie Lumbroso, Lecturer in Princeton’s Department of Computer Science, begs to differ. Companies like Facebook have “no incentive” to make customer data available, he argues — instead, their value depends on their ability to serve as “gatekeepers” between users and businesses, keeping information under lock and key.
“Privacy is important, but it’s a red herring,” he explains. “And it’s a red herring that allows us to forget about the real problem, which is advertisement.” The issue is twofold: first, Big Tech companies bombard users with ads that they never chose to see, squeezing commercials in front of YouTube videos and plastering banners on websites. Even further, companies employ addictive design strategies called dark patterns to ensure that consumers stay on their platform long enough to see those ads. Dr. Lumbroso illustrates the phenomenon with a single, powerful image: a pair of eyes held open by matchsticks, unable to stop looking. “Collectively as a society, we’re spending an hour a day on social media that we would’ve spent writing a book or creating a business plan, or just creating value,” he says. “That is something that we’re not talking about.” In the end, consumers pay the price for using free online services. “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product,” he reminds us.
But if the real problem with Big Tech lies in advertising, why did none of the other Princetonians we interviewed explicitly mention it? “My favorite sentence when I think about advertisement is, ‘The devil’s greatest trick is convincing the world that he doesn’t exist,’” says Dr. Lumbroso. “If you ask anybody what they think the impact of advertisement is on them, everybody thinks that they’re somehow immune, and it’s the other people for whom advertisement is built. I can tell you that my position is the opposite,” he adds. “I think that I’m susceptible to just about any form of advertisement you can find.” A recent Global Web Index report would support his conclusion: 49% of the roughly 4,000 internet users surveyed said that they were more likely to buy brands that they had seen advertised. To truly understand just how insidious online advertising can be, we can ask ourselves the two simple questions that Dr. Lumbroso also asks himself: “How often am I exposed to ads? How often do I choose to be exposed to ads?”
But the next step on the path to consumer protection remains unclear. Should the government step in and break up technology monopolies? “Absolutely!” argues Cheetham. “Didn’t the 1984 FCC-mandated breakup of AT&T into Baby Cells serve the consumer well?” But Woo worries that such drastic interference would set a terrible precedent. “It could disincentivize budding companies, having the knowledge that at any time the government could just decide to step in and break up a company that people worked very hard to build,” she explains.
Perhaps increased government oversight is the more viable option: some tech experts have even argued for establishing a federal regulatory agency, prioritizing a “risk management” rather than a “micromanagement” approach with regards to Big Tech corporations. One Princeton first-year would support a similar strategy: “I think it’s important that regulations are in place to protect the members of society, who, as individuals, do not have significant power over these companies,” she says.
For Dr. Lumbroso, the best defense against consumer abuse isn’t the government but consumers themselves. He advises users to turn on ad-blockers whenever possible and download his original extension (aptly named AdmiralSucks!), which combats the tech company Admiral’s ability to override those blockers. Additionally, rather than relying on ad-ridden platforms like Facebook and Instagram, he suggests downloading an alternative like Marco Polo, a hybrid between Snapchat and Skype, which allows users to connect via video chat. “[Marco Polo] doesn’t have any ads in the mix, and you can see that it’s designed completely differently. It’s not trying to stress you out, it’s not trying to make you feel like you’re missing out,” he notes. He also recommends Scroll, an inexpensive service he describes as “Netflix for newspapers.” The platform aims to provide ad-free news by distributing membership fees among its coalition of partners, which spans from The Atlantic to Buzzfeed.
Along the same vein, many Princeton students reported using alternative search engines or taking social media “hiatuses,” while others reported limiting their overall technology usage. “I have Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook, but I use them for about an hour a week, collectively,” says the first-year. “They serve as a means of connection when needed, rather than a constant source of instant gratification.” As one sophomore concludes, “it is up to us to choose the companies that we support and the services that they offer.” So maybe a disconnect from Big Tech isn’t such a bad thing: “It is like the Chicago song, ‘Hard to Say I’m Sorry,’” he says, referring to the Broadway musical. “‘Everybody needs a little time away.’”
In the end, consumer agency comes down to our everyday choices. “These products are built this way because…you want to get everything for free or for the cheapest possible price,” says Dr. Lumbroso. “Stop doing that, and think about where you want to spend your time.”
.
* Students whose names are not provided wished to remain anonymous.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.