This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/30/tech-giants-power-tax-apple-google
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Tech giants know where the power lies. It’s not with us Tech giants know where the power lies. It’s not with us | |
| (about 13 hours later) | |
| Science fiction authors have long warned of calamity if computers gain dominion over people. None anticipated that machines would exercise newfound power by promoting stories about a man having sex with a chicken sandwich, as Facebook’s algorithm did shortly after it was put in charge of the site’s “trending” news feed. | Science fiction authors have long warned of calamity if computers gain dominion over people. None anticipated that machines would exercise newfound power by promoting stories about a man having sex with a chicken sandwich, as Facebook’s algorithm did shortly after it was put in charge of the site’s “trending” news feed. |
| Technically, of course, it was not the algorithm that liked the “McChicken” story, but prurient humans. They shared the link, which led the machine to conclude that it was important. And because Facebook had just sacked its editorial team over alleged political bias, there was nobody on duty to exercise quality control. | Technically, of course, it was not the algorithm that liked the “McChicken” story, but prurient humans. They shared the link, which led the machine to conclude that it was important. And because Facebook had just sacked its editorial team over alleged political bias, there was nobody on duty to exercise quality control. |
| From Facebook’s perspective, it is better to be accused of peddling filth than partisanship. The algorithms still have flesh-and-blood authors, so the company cannot use automation to launder all ethical dilemmas from its operation. But the goal is to sequester a human exercising judgment about content as far away as possible from a user who might be upset. The fewer human interventions between coding geek and desktop horror, the more plausibly the company can deny responsibility. The last thing Facebook bosses want is moral ownership of stuff people do on their site. Internet platforms, they say, are neutral, like other tools. You can use a shovel to dig a hole or hit someone over the head, but no one expects shovel-makers to prevent acts of bludgeoning. | From Facebook’s perspective, it is better to be accused of peddling filth than partisanship. The algorithms still have flesh-and-blood authors, so the company cannot use automation to launder all ethical dilemmas from its operation. But the goal is to sequester a human exercising judgment about content as far away as possible from a user who might be upset. The fewer human interventions between coding geek and desktop horror, the more plausibly the company can deny responsibility. The last thing Facebook bosses want is moral ownership of stuff people do on their site. Internet platforms, they say, are neutral, like other tools. You can use a shovel to dig a hole or hit someone over the head, but no one expects shovel-makers to prevent acts of bludgeoning. |
| Such arguments were more persuasive when tech companies were the plucky underdogs of capitalism; when Silicon Valley was the laboratory for an experiment to hybridise the pioneering spirit of the wild west and the share-everything, hippy ethos of San Francisco – a place for buccaneering entrepreneurs with a conscience. Google’s 2004 mission statement was “Don’t be evil” (subsequently amended to “Do the right thing”). Through its years of exponential growth, the tech sector enjoyed a long, collective brand honeymoon. Shiny and new attracted cash and goodwill. | Such arguments were more persuasive when tech companies were the plucky underdogs of capitalism; when Silicon Valley was the laboratory for an experiment to hybridise the pioneering spirit of the wild west and the share-everything, hippy ethos of San Francisco – a place for buccaneering entrepreneurs with a conscience. Google’s 2004 mission statement was “Don’t be evil” (subsequently amended to “Do the right thing”). Through its years of exponential growth, the tech sector enjoyed a long, collective brand honeymoon. Shiny and new attracted cash and goodwill. |
| Time, taxes and terrorism have changed the mood. Digital behemoths are hardly alone among multinational corporations gaming competition between different tax regimes to minimise their bill. But they are among the slickest navigators of the labyrinth. And, perhaps because their products are enmeshed with the intimate lives of consumers – people literally take Apple devices to bed – the offence is more keenly felt. | Time, taxes and terrorism have changed the mood. Digital behemoths are hardly alone among multinational corporations gaming competition between different tax regimes to minimise their bill. But they are among the slickest navigators of the labyrinth. And, perhaps because their products are enmeshed with the intimate lives of consumers – people literally take Apple devices to bed – the offence is more keenly felt. |
| The European commission has yesterday ordered Apple to pay up to €13bn in back taxes, ruling that a system allowing the company to attribute profits on sales from across the continent to a head office in Ireland amounted to illegal state subsidy. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has called suggestions of tax avoidance “political crap”. The Irish government is also unhappy, since the tax concession was part of a strategy to lure investment into the country. Apple wasn’t headquartered in Cork for the weather. | The European commission has yesterday ordered Apple to pay up to €13bn in back taxes, ruling that a system allowing the company to attribute profits on sales from across the continent to a head office in Ireland amounted to illegal state subsidy. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has called suggestions of tax avoidance “political crap”. The Irish government is also unhappy, since the tax concession was part of a strategy to lure investment into the country. Apple wasn’t headquartered in Cork for the weather. |
| We barely even have a language to describe this realm, let alone a way of conducting politics within and around it | We barely even have a language to describe this realm, let alone a way of conducting politics within and around it |
| Over the past year Amazon, bowing to political pressure, has stopped booking sales to UK customers in Luxembourg. Google struck a deal worth £130m with the British government, ostensibly to atone for years of channelling revenue through complex structures that bypassed the exchequer. No one outside the company, with the exception of George Osborne, thought the sum amounted to reasonable amends. One lesson may be that a Europe-wide regulator can twist corporate arms harder than national governments can. | Over the past year Amazon, bowing to political pressure, has stopped booking sales to UK customers in Luxembourg. Google struck a deal worth £130m with the British government, ostensibly to atone for years of channelling revenue through complex structures that bypassed the exchequer. No one outside the company, with the exception of George Osborne, thought the sum amounted to reasonable amends. One lesson may be that a Europe-wide regulator can twist corporate arms harder than national governments can. |
| Few government agencies apply pressure harder than the FBI. Yet it failed to make Apple comply with a February 2016 court order that would have forced it to unlock the iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist in a mass shooting. Apple refused to carve a back door into its encryptions, arguing that such a route could be used by bad guys too. Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter mumbled cautious agreement with Apple’s position. | Few government agencies apply pressure harder than the FBI. Yet it failed to make Apple comply with a February 2016 court order that would have forced it to unlock the iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist in a mass shooting. Apple refused to carve a back door into its encryptions, arguing that such a route could be used by bad guys too. Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter mumbled cautious agreement with Apple’s position. |
| Back on this side of the Atlantic, parliament’s home affairs committee last week published a report accusing online media companies of “consciously failing” to act against terrorist propaganda. YouTube (a subsidiary of Google), Facebook and Twitter were singled out for reluctance to expunge material venerating the likes of Islamic State. Since UK authorities have no power to demand compliance, the government is reduced to urging tech companies to behave as responsible global citizens. The companies want to help, of course, but not if it means a creeping acquisition of duties as the internet’s content police. | Back on this side of the Atlantic, parliament’s home affairs committee last week published a report accusing online media companies of “consciously failing” to act against terrorist propaganda. YouTube (a subsidiary of Google), Facebook and Twitter were singled out for reluctance to expunge material venerating the likes of Islamic State. Since UK authorities have no power to demand compliance, the government is reduced to urging tech companies to behave as responsible global citizens. The companies want to help, of course, but not if it means a creeping acquisition of duties as the internet’s content police. |
| Whether the point of contention is political bias, porn, abuse, fraud, tax avoidance or incitement to murder, the corporations that control the new means of mass communication do not see themselves as curators of a public space. Why should they, when they are private companies? Their business is making money, not promoting social hygiene and peace on Earth. But the national authorities that are expected to enforce good behaviour within specific borders have no workable method for extending that mandate into fuzzy online jurisdictions. | Whether the point of contention is political bias, porn, abuse, fraud, tax avoidance or incitement to murder, the corporations that control the new means of mass communication do not see themselves as curators of a public space. Why should they, when they are private companies? Their business is making money, not promoting social hygiene and peace on Earth. But the national authorities that are expected to enforce good behaviour within specific borders have no workable method for extending that mandate into fuzzy online jurisdictions. |
| Meanwhile, users experience services provided by those private companies as public goods. No one sees a Google search as a commercial transaction, although in reality your query is a kind of payment to the company in data about the stuff that interests you and that advertisers like to know. | Meanwhile, users experience services provided by those private companies as public goods. No one sees a Google search as a commercial transaction, although in reality your query is a kind of payment to the company in data about the stuff that interests you and that advertisers like to know. |
| Our phones are material extensions of ourselves, repositories for memories and secrets. A generation is growing up indigenous to social media, with ideas of community, belonging – their very identities – shaped by technology in ways that their parents, the befuddled digital immigrants, scarcely comprehend. Facebook has 1.71 billion active monthly users, many of whom treat it as their main source of news and their principle portal for communication with friends and family. That isn’t a company: it’s a territory more populous than any nation state. We barely even have a language to describe this realm, let alone a way of conducting politics within and around it. | Our phones are material extensions of ourselves, repositories for memories and secrets. A generation is growing up indigenous to social media, with ideas of community, belonging – their very identities – shaped by technology in ways that their parents, the befuddled digital immigrants, scarcely comprehend. Facebook has 1.71 billion active monthly users, many of whom treat it as their main source of news and their principle portal for communication with friends and family. That isn’t a company: it’s a territory more populous than any nation state. We barely even have a language to describe this realm, let alone a way of conducting politics within and around it. |
| The solution probably doesn’t begin with unilateral separation from the one regulatory regime in our part of the world – the EU – of a scale to command deference from multinational giants. But hunting wayward tax revenues, gratifying though it may be for the self-esteem of analogue authorities, doesn’t begin to grapple with the challenge. When states manage to claw back a few dollars, or make security demands from the borderless companies that host the social lives of their citizens, they are not seriously reclaiming power. They are pleading for relevance. | The solution probably doesn’t begin with unilateral separation from the one regulatory regime in our part of the world – the EU – of a scale to command deference from multinational giants. But hunting wayward tax revenues, gratifying though it may be for the self-esteem of analogue authorities, doesn’t begin to grapple with the challenge. When states manage to claw back a few dollars, or make security demands from the borderless companies that host the social lives of their citizens, they are not seriously reclaiming power. They are pleading for relevance. |