Tech titans in Silicon Valley spent the better part of 2016 trying to convince consumers and policymakers of their neutrality in the political process. But critics say the industry’s political engagement seems to be ramping up ahead of what could be a crucial year for tech in Washington.
“We want more people participating, but we don’t want the Internet Association or anyone else skewing or trying to sign up either Republican voters or Democratic voters,” said Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams, referencing the trade association working on behalf of tech companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter.
Williams said he believed tech companies should remain politically neutral. “Their job is not to promote one ideology. Their job is to promote the technology and get people involved in the electoral process from a nonpartisan point of view.”
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602141
Companies insist they have been neutral. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg went so far as to invite conservative leaders to meet with him in May, following allegations of bias in his website’s trending news feed.
Google has denied allegations that its search engine tilts left. Twitter has engaged with the public less than its peers, but has denied manipulating its news feed to favor liberal political causes.
The companies are nonetheless set to become more politically engaged than ever, and plan to get involved with federal political campaigns and to create an unprecedented, monolithic news enterprise.
Plans for political engagement were revealed over the summer by a Federal Election Commission filing submitted by the Internet Association.
In its request for an advisory opinion from the commission on the legality of its plan, the association said the tech giants were seeking to establish an online platform where users could log on to “see the candidates … ask questions, share their views and, if they desire, make a contribution to the candidate.”
The association said it would control which candidates are invited to use the platform, and that while others “might” be allowed to make use of it, the association “certainly hoped” outside parties would simply create their own.
In a separate initiative announced in September, Facebook and Twitter announced that they were going to join several publications considered left-leaning, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, in an effort to “train journalists” and create “a collaborative verification platform” to filter “false information” out of the news.
Critics say the initiative could amplify the very problem it purports to solve. “The Internet has been fairly successful at self-regulating when websites behave in ways that are unfair or shady,” said Drew Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit Protect Internet Freedom.
“The Facebook anti-conservative bias scandal quickly resolved itself when outraged Facebook users called the company out for manipulating its trending news,” he said. “Facebook responded because, at the end of the day, they didn’t want to lose eyeballs.
“Unlike the Left, which uses government to regulate speech to their political advantage, we believe the best place to fight these battles is in the marketplace of ideas.”
The effort by tech to become more politically engaged comes amid policy battles with implications for the industry.
Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune initiated a congressional inquiry into Facebook in May, and Williams pointed out the Federal Communications Commission is still deciding whether to regulate so-called “edge providers” providing online services like Facebook, Google and Twitter.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2601423
Williams said companies have a right to be politically active, but that he hoped they would be transparent. “We don’t think one industry or company should have an undue influence when it comes to regulation or policy, but it doesn’t mean business or industry shouldn’t voice their concerns.
“The solution is transparency. If there are company officials having meetings inside the FCC, the White House, they need to be transparent about it,” Williams said.
Johnson echoed the sentiment, arguing the companies should make their positions clear so consumers can make informed choices. “We do hope that Silicon Valley will become more transparent when they play favorites and attempt to influence the outcome of political discussion and elections,” Johnson said.
“No one wants to spend money or time supporting a company whose values are hostile to them,” he added. “Internet users should have the opportunity to make an informed decision about which sites and online services to support.”
