Tech Moguls Cheer for Trump: Who Will Stand Up?

by

On Inauguration Day, Elon Musk’s salute towards Donald Trump garnered a lot of attention, but for those worried about media freedom, another image was equally unsettling. Seated prominently in the Capitol rotunda were some of the biggest names in tech – Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta), Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon), Sundar Pichai (Google CEO) and Elon Musk himself, all appearing to cheer on the new president.

Furthermore, positioned slightly at a distance, we found Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, Sam Altman from OpenAI, and TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew. On January 20th, Trump later issued an executive order postponing a federal ban on the Chinese-owned social media platform that is TikTok.

Or

Besides them, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Sam Altman of OpenAI, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew were seated a bit further away. On January 20th, Trump issued an executive order delaying the federal ban on TikTok, which is owned by China.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out that big tech billionaires enjoyed prime viewing positions at Trump’s inauguration, even surpassing the vantage points of Trump’s cabinet nominees. This, she implied, exemplified the very concern Joe Biden voiced in his final address from the Oval Office on January 15: the rise of an influential “oligarchy” within the “tech industry” whose vast wealth and power pose a significant threat to our democratic system as a whole.

It’s possible that the perception of tech giants, such as Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Musk, having a dominant influence over the entire U.S. economy might be exaggerated. According to statistics from The Economist, their combined economic power represents less than 2% of the total American GDP. Including Apple and Alphabet brings this figure up to 3.1%. This is significantly smaller than a controlling share. However, when it comes to the struggle for influence between traditional media outlets and tech companies, it’s challenging to remain optimistic about the decline in the strength and reach of legacy media while the power of platforms has grown substantially since President Trump took office eight years ago.

Johnny Ryan, director of Enforce, a civil liberties organization from Ireland, points out that both in America and Europe, there’s been a significant accumulation of power over media infrastructure, which has unfortunate consequences. This oversight has led to the rise of powerful figures, often referred to as oligarchs, who shape our collective perspective on the world due to their control over what we see online. It seems that these oligarchs are now serving the interests of the incoming government.

Several tech leaders who previously criticized Trump are now aligning with the MAGA ideology in an attempt to secure government contracts, enjoy tax and regulatory benefits, and avoid potential retaliation from Trump. In a matter of days, Zuckerberg made several moves that shifted Meta’s stance: he paused their fact-checking program, appointed Republican figure Joel Kaplan as chief global affairs officer instead of the liberal Nick Clegg, brought UFC boss and Trump confidant Dana White onto Meta’s board, and abandoned DEI initiatives disliked by conservatives. The Washington Post, which had been rigorous in scrutinizing Trump during his first term and documented all 30,573 false or misleading statements he made as president, hesitated to endorse Kamala Harris at the end of the campaign.

Remnants of traditional media seem intimidated by economic instability and legal threats, which have led to reduced resources for challenging opposition and fewer opportunities to stand up for themselves. In December, instead of contesting a defamation lawsuit filed by Trump against George Stephanopoulos, ABC News chose to settle the case, agreeing to contribute $15 million towards Trump’s presidential library fund and cover his legal expenses, estimated at an additional $1 million. Earlier this month, in a separate instance, CNN was ordered to pay $5 million for defaming a private security contractor in a 2021 news segment. The CNN case had no connection with Trump, but it demonstrates the increasing public disapproval of mainstream media outlets, at a time when financial difficulties have made it challenging for these organizations to defend against lawsuits.

The bipartisan PRESS Act (Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act), aimed at bolstering journalist protections against government surveillance and confiscation of reporting materials, would have made it more difficult for an antagonistic executive branch to suppress dissenting reports. This bill passed unanimously in the House, but following Trump’s call for Republicans in Congress to “eliminate” it, the Senate failed to take action on it in December.

Subsequently, we have the FCC, currently led by Brendan Carr, a Trump ally. In his initial term as FCC chair, Carr has reinstated grievances against ABC, NBC, and CBS, echoing Trump’s sentiments, claiming a liberal bias within these national broadcast networks. The allegations include one accusing NBC of breaching federal fairness rules by including Harris in an SNL skit four days prior to the election, another concerning ABC News’ handling of the September Trump-Harris debate, and one related to a CBS edit of a Harris interview for 60 Minutes. All these complaints were previously dismissed by former Democratic FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel. (NBC attempted to temper Trump’s anger over Harris’ SNL appearance by offering him free airtime during a NASCAR race for interacting with voters.) Rosenworcel also discarded a fourth complaint, filed against Fox Corp’s Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan. This complaint suggested that after Fox News propagated false claims about Dominion Voting Systems machines being used to rig the 2020 election in favor of Biden, the Murdochs were deemed unfit to retain broadcast licenses due to a lack of moral character. However, Carr concurred with this decision and did not reopen the case against Fox.

It’s uncertain whether the criticisms against the networks will proceed, and although Trump made threats during his campaign, it’s questionable if he could actually use the FCC to revoke broadcasting licenses from networks that displease him. The mere threat of retribution, however, might be enough to silence Trump’s critics. In November, Trump filed a 10-billion-dollar lawsuit against CBS, alleging “illegal acts of election and voter manipulation” in the editing of Harris’ 60 Minutes clip. Regardless of the validity of the suit, for CBS’ parent company, Paramount, which is seeking federal approval for its 8-billion-dollar merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media, it might be more practical to settle than to fight and risk a Trump administration blocking the deal. (On Trump’s first full day in office, Larry Ellison, David’s father, joined the president to announce a 500-billion-dollar AI initiative, raising speculation about how the elder Ellison could help smooth things over for his son’s media deal.)

A cause for greater concern among those wary of a potential Trump-Big Tech partnership lies in the absence of regulatory boundaries for social media within the U.S. Currently, much of the country’s approach to this issue is based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides platform owners with significant legal protection from user-generated content.

If significant domestic political obstacles are not encountered in the U.S., a viable avenue for countering the influence of tech magnates, or broligarchs, might originate from Europe. Over the last ten years, the European Union has been diligent in creating a legal infrastructure to manage and restrict online platforms, causing even tech tycoons like Musk and Zuckerberg to reconsider their data handling practices. This legislative framework encompasses various laws such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the General Data Protection Regulation, and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

Europe could provide a strong resistance against powerful tech figures, or broligarchs, due to its recent efforts in creating laws to regulate online platforms. This includes the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, General Data Protection Regulation, and Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

According to Lucas Graves, a professor from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Europe has advanced regulations for platform management. However, it’s uncertain whether Europe has the determination to implement these rules, considering the emergence of similar political attitudes as Trumpism in many parts of the EU.

In my gaming world, this tale was initially shared in the January 29th edition of The Hollywood Reporter’s magazine. If you fancy getting your hands on that magazine every week, why not consider subscribing right here?

Read More

2025-01-29 17:55