Big Tech Research Articles

The next digital inflection point for US banks

This paper explores the effect of technology on the American banking landscape in the 21st century. The number of US banks and bank branches has been consistently decreasing in this century, partly owing to technological advances. Existing legacy delivery channels, however, have slowed the rate at which banks in the United States have adopted and deployed the technology available to them. This slower rate of innovation by US banks has resulted in a level of consumer dissatisfaction that has created opportunities in the banking sector for FinTechs and Big Techs, especially since 2009.

Big Tech, the Platform Economy and the European Digital Markets

Big Tech, the Platform Economy and the European Digital Markets

디지털 시대의 보험설계사

The insurance industry is facing a changing market environment due to the entry of big tech companies, changing consumer needs, and a preference for general agencies(GA) among solicitors. In particular, as the entry of big tech companies deepen their presence, insurance companies have introduced “digital insurance solicitors” as one response to strengthen their business capabilities. Unlike traditional insurance solicitors, digital insurance solicitors have low entry barriers and high work freedom. This provides an opportunity to become an insurance solicitor through online training, even offers online work environment for sales activities. Therefore, people who have had little or no experience in the insurance industry, such as working professionals seeking part-time jobs, graduate students, and homemakers, can work as insurance solicitors using their free time. Digital insurance solicitors can create positive effects such as increased opportunities for acquiring new customers and expanding customer touchpoints for insurance companies. However, efforts are needed to minimize expected side effects including incomplete sales due to a lack of insurance-related knowledge. Incentives are also recommended to encourage sales activities and maintain high settlement rates. Insurance companies need to continue to establish and monitor suitable support systems for the digital environment including expanding online and offline education to enhance the overall capabilities of digital insurance solicitors. The insurance industry's new and proactive attempt to respond to environmental changes, the “digital insurance solicitor”, should be watched with attention.

Argumentation strategies in lobbying: toward a typology

PurposeThis paper develops a typology of argumentation strategies used in lobbying. Unlike in other strategic communication functions such as crisis or risk communication, such typologies have not been proposed in the sub-field of public affairs.Design/methodology/approachThe article synthesises the strategic communication, political communication and policy studies literature and employs exchange theory to explain the communicative-strategic exchange in public affairs. It showcases its explanatory potential with illustrative examples from Big Tech lobbying.FindingsThe paper describes that categories of argumentation strategies that a public affairs professional will choose are based on the contingency of the issue, policy objective and lobbying objective. The descriptive typology will require empirical testing to develop further.Social implicationsThe paper describes how public affairs professionals influence public policy through their argumentation strategies, which sheds light on the usually opaque activities of lobbying.Originality/valueThe proposed typology is the first of its kind for the field of public affairs. Beyond, it contributes communication-scientific insights from a rhetorical tradition to strategic communication research and other social science fields where lobbying is studied, e.g. policy studies.

Regulating Big Tech expansionism? Sphere transgressions and the limits of Europe’s digital regulatory strategy

ABSTRACT The increasing power of Big Tech is a growing concern for regulators globally. The European Union has positioned itself as a leader in the stride to contain this expansionism; first with the GDPR and recently with a series of proposals including the DMA, the DSA, the AI Act, and others. In this paper we analyse if these instruments sufficiently address the risks raised by Big Tech expansionism. We argue that when this phenomenon is understood in terms of ‘sphere transgressions’ – i.e., conversions of advantages based on digital expertise into advantages in other spheres of society – Europe’s digital regulatory strategy falls short. In particular, seen through the lens of sphere transgressions, Big Tech expansionism raises three risks in addition to well-known privacy and data protection risks, which this regulatory strategy does not properly address. These are: non-equitable returns to the public sector; the reshaping of sectors in line with the interests of technology firms; and new dependencies on technology firms for the provision of basic goods. Our analysis shows that this mismatch may be inherent to Europe’s digital strategy, insofar as it focusses on data protection – while data is not always at stake in sphere transgressions; on political and civil rights – while socio-economic rights may be more at risk; and on fair markets – while the sectors being transgressed into by Big Tech, such as health and education, are not markets that require fairer competition, but societal spheres which need protection from market (and digital) logics.

Toward Realignment: Big Tech, Organized Labor, and the Politics of the Future of Work

Toward Realignment: Big Tech, Organized Labor, and the Politics of the Future of Work

Securing the platform: how Google appropriates security

ABSTRACT Google is increasingly developing a manifold of security products for its users, businesses, and national security actors like the US Department of Defence. However, the company and its employees struggle with whether, and how, it should be involved in practices of security, war or weaponry. To unpack how Google emerges as a security actor, I bring new media studies perspectives regarding the socio-political roles Google plays in today’s society to critical security studies. With this interdisciplinary approach to studying Big Tech’s role in security, this article analyses how Google appropriates security throughout its ecosystem of platforms, products and projects. The article illustrates that Google’s first and foremost objective is to secure its platform by carefully balancing between being perceived as both neutral and progressive. Google thus appropriates (in)security by developing seemingly mundane and neutral security products, services and projects that align with its platform logic. In doing so, Google locks in new users into its platforms, whilst reshaping (in)security issues into platform issues and identifying the platform as a public and security concern.

Incorporating privacy considerations into EU data-driven merger review

ABSTRACT In recent years, large digital companies have been gobbling up hundreds of smaller highly innovative firms involved in the collection and the processing of data. Some regulators, academics and practitioners have expressed concerns that Big Tech might use the increased market power and the greater concentration of consumers’ personal data stemming from data-driven mergers to harm consumers in the form of lower privacy protection. They wonder whether and to what extent the EU Commission and/or national competition authorities should take into account data protection considerations when reviewing transactions under the Merger Regulation and/or national merger control rules. The Commission’s decisional practice points towards three possible routes for integrating privacy concerns into competition analysis. Given their respective shortcomings, we explore the possibility of using the German Federal Cartel Office’s line of reasoning in its Facebook decision as a model for the incorporation of privacy considerations into EU data-driven merger analysis.

The Dominance of Big Tech Platforms: Should We Revisit the Principles of Strategy?

The Dominance of Big Tech Platforms: Should We Revisit the Principles of Strategy?

The watchdog role in the age of Big Tech – how news media in the United States and Germany hold Big Tech corporations accountable

ABSTRACT The unprecedented power of Big Tech corporations and the complexity of regulating them requires considering the role of news media as a corporate accountability mechanism. The aim of this article is to examine news media’s watchdog role through a performative lens, extending it to the corporate context by looking at three manifestations of performance: media visibility, way of coverage, and sourcing patterns. Based on a longitudinal quantitative content analysis of 920 news stories on Big Tech from four media outlets (2000–2021) in the United States and Germany, we explain variances in the watchdog role taking an over-time, cross-country, and cross-political leaning perspective. Our findings suggest that Big Tech corporations receive little but increasing media attention over the years that is driven by events. Similarly, news coverage contains an increasingly strong presence of a detached watchdog role performance. A more interventionist watchdog role is also on the rise – even though marginally – and political actors are increasingly given a voice in news coverage. From a comparative perspective, our results show that Big Tech corporations are more visible in the US and across right leaning news outlets. US journalists exhibit a more detached approach, while German journalists perform a significantly higher interventionist performance. Corporate sources are overall prominent in the media arena yet dominate more in the US. In conclusion, US and German news media are critical but passive observers over Big Tech corporations and can therefore be labeled a tame yet increasingly growling watchdog when it comes to holding Big Tech accountable.

The Ethics of Sharing: Privacy, Data, and Common Goods

Given the concerns about big tech’s hoarding of data, creation of profiles, mining of data, and extrapolation of new knowledge from their data warehouses, there is a need and interest in devising policies and regulations that better shape big tech's influence on people and their lives. One such proposal is to create data commons. In this paper, we examine the idea of data commons as well as the concept of sharing in relation to the concept of personal data. We argue that personal data are different in nature from the objects of classical commons wherefore the logic of “sharing is caring” is flawed. We, therefore, develop an ethics of sharing taking privacy into account as well as the idea that sometimes the right thing to do is not sharing. This ethics of sharing is based in a proposal to conceptualize data commons as MacIntyrean practices and Wittgensteinian forms of life.

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

AbstractLarge online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Advancing search engine studies: The evolution of Google critique and intervention

In this piece, which frames the special issue, “The State of Google Critique and Intervention,” we provide an overview of research focusing on Google as an object of critical study, fleshing out the European interventions that actively attempt to address its dominance. The article begins by mapping out key areas of articulating a Google critique, from the initial focus on ranking and profiling to the subsequent scrutiny of user exploitation and competitive imbalance. As such, it situates the contributions to this special issue concerning search engine bias and discrimination, the ethics of Google Autocomplete, Google's content moderation, the commodification of engine audiences and the political economy of technical systems in a broader history of Google criticism. It then proceeds to contextualize the European developments that put forward alternatives and draws attention to legislative efforts to curb the influence of big tech. We conclude by identifying a few avenues for continued critical study, such as Google's infrastructural bundling of generative artificial intelligence with existing products, to emphasize the importance of intervention in the future.

Digital resignation and the datafied welfare state

This commentary calls for further research into digital resignation within non-market contexts, particularly in relation to the datafied welfare state, as distinct from commercial big tech platforms. We aim to nuance the concept of digital resignation by relating it to the digitization of institutions and public services upholding the Danish welfare state, including health services, childcare, and news consumption. These cases illustrate that datafication stimulates citizens’ discomfort by registering privacy-intrusive information and setting new standards for being a good citizen, which resignation research can help us understand. We use the case examples to propose new avenues for digital resignation research and question whether organizations, institutions, and governments themselves can be digitally resigned. As such, the usefulness of digital resignation as a concept can be expanded.

중국 생성형 인공지능 규제에 관한 고찰

CAC on April 11 issued draft Measures to govern generative AI service provision in China. The draft Measures related to the regulation of generative AI. However, in terms of technical features(①data; ②algorithm; ③AIGC; ④forming public opinion), there are current laws and regulations(①Cybersecurity Law·Data Security Law·PIPL; ②Algorithm Regulation; ③Deepfake Regulation; ④Public Opinion Regulation). As abovementioned, China had a way to regulate generative. Nevertheless, the reason for rushing to enact the Measures is that generative AI has caused great social repercussions. China stipulates the protection of IP rights and personal information, and the prevention of monopoly of Big Tech to fill the legislative gap. A careful examination of the Measures reveals that the main purpose of enacting the Measures is not to resolve conflicts of rights. It focuses on strengthening national security in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Because, in the process of data processing using AI technology, information related to national security may be exposed, and users can make behaviors that threaten social order by distributing AIGC. In addition, China’s expert groups take it as a serious problem that the gap in AI skills between the US and China will fundamentally affect the national competitiveness of the two countries. In order for Chinese Big Tech to narrow the technological gap amid adverse circumstances the legislation and policies will have to be supported. From this point of view, it is difficult to see that the Measures is intended to add new regulations on generative AI. Rather, it can be seen as an attempt to strengthen the technological capabilities of Chinese Big Tech while maintaining the current level of regulation on generative AI. In addition, it implies the intention to use the Measures when a situation that threatens national security triggered by generative AI.

Streaming the beautiful game: exploring big tech's growing presence in the soccer industry.

This study investigates the evolving role of major technology corporations-namely, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix, and Google-in the sports industry, with a specific focus on soccer. By employing a qualitative content analysis of media reports, scientific literature, and annual reports from 2000 to 2021, the research scrutinizes the varying approaches and investments of these tech giants in the domain of sports. The findings classify these companies into three distinct categories: (1) those actively securing broadcast rights for major competitions and leagues (Google, Facebook, Amazon); (2) those primarily producing and disseminating soccer documentaries (Netflix); and (3) those not directly engaging in media rights but advancing the technological aspects of clubs and leagues (Apple and Microsoft). This study underscores the escalating significance of Big Tech in reshaping the sports media landscape and calls for further research to comprehend the broader implications of their presence in sports broadcasting and fan engagement.

Assembling Publics: Microsoft, Cybersecurity and Public‐Private Relations

In this article, we advance the literature on publics in international politics by exploring the nexus between publicness and big tech companies. This nexus finds a significant expression in the increasing impact of big tech companies to mediate disputes over societal problems, deliver social goods and rearticulate public-private relationships. We develop an analytical framework by combining recent scholarship on assemblage theory and publics, allowing us to understand publicness as enacted in practices which revolve around issues and rearticulate relations of authority and legitimacy. To demonstrate the value of the framework, we show how Microsoft is involved in assembling publicness around cybersecurity. Microsoft does so by problematising and countering state-led cybersecurity activities, questioning the state as a protector of its citizens and proposing governance measures to establish the tech sector as authoritative, and legitimate “first responders.” With this rearticulating of public-private relations, we see the emergence of a political subject for whom security is not solely the right of a citizen secured by the state but also a customer service provided as per a service agreement. The study hence offers important insights into the connection between publicness and cybersecurity, state and big tech relations, and the formation of authority and legitimacy in international politics.

Taxing Big Tech Vs Regulating Them: A Public Finance Comparison of Digital Services Taxes

This article explores the potential efficacy of a hypothetical digital advertising tax as an alternative approach to comprehensive data legislation that governs consumer data collection. It explores whether such a tax could effectively serve many of the same objectives as regulatory measures. The article focuses on analyzing the public finance characteristics of such a tax, aiming to assess its efficiency and impact on different stakeholders. The study investigates how taxes could potentially mitigate some of the more severe privacy and social risks associated with an economy driven by digital advertising, in comparison to the regulatory frameworks currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress. In addition, a “privacy emissions” tax may be more efficient than regulation that depends on agency investigations and fines, as firm activities can be heterogeneous and opaque and privacy legislation has stalled in the U.S. Congress. The tax model is applied to recent digital services taxes passed in Maryland and the EU.

Digital commoning and post-capitalist crypto-economies: The case of FairCoop

In the context of the current global recession, big tech and big data corporations have amassed a disturbing amount of power and influence in this new phase of platform and surveillance capitalism. Against this backdrop, and inspired by Gibson-Graham’s invitation to look for difference rather than dominance, this paper considers digital commons as a viable post-capitalist alternative. In particular, this research’s focus will be on the international activist collective, FairCoop. This group, inspired by ideas of degrowth, decentralization and post-capitalism, has developed its own crypto-currency, FairCoin, along with tools and infrastructures that seek to challenge the economic and digital status quo. Grounded in ethnographic fieldwork, this investigation explores the practices and experiences of this alternative economic project. Drawing on commoning literature, the paper engages with the challenges that such initiatives face, such as the risky entanglements with crypto-markets, governance mechanisms, transparency and management issues, scalability and individual burnouts. By studying FairCoop and associated collectives such as Komun and Kaana, this paper demonstrates how alternative economies, blockchain initiatives and digital commoning can contribute to more progressive and transformative technological innovation. Yet, focusing on the practice and (re)production of the commons reveals a multifaceted picture. I argue that if we are to study the present and future of digital commoning, it is crucial to engage with difficult issues such as tensions, hierarchies and democratic deficits. These cases will be discussed to further the debate on the possibilities for post-capitalism in the digital era and bring alternative economies, technological innovation and commoning perspectives into a fruitful dialogue.

Big tech credit score and default risk ——Evidence from loan-level data of a representative microfinance company in China

Using a unique loan-level dataset from a representative microfinance company in China, this paper investigates the information spillover effect of big tech credit scores on microloan risk management. We analyze a quasi-natural experiment where the microfinance company integrated big tech credit scores into its loan decision-making process. Our findings indicate that incorporating fintech information into risk assessments significantly lowers the default rate for new borrowers compared to existing ones. This effect is more pronounced for borrowers with insufficient collateral, higher loan demand, and medium risk levels, as well as for branches with higher historical default rates. Additionally, we observe a slight reduction in approved loan amounts for borrowers with medium risk levels, suggesting that big tech information contributes to more prudent loan decisions in microfinance.