Social media, security risk and society

The establishment and monopoly behaviour of American Internet giant companies is contributing greatly to the authority of the American government. These companies have often played an innovative and liberating role. But, until “Facebook” and “Google” has become more powerful, they have become obstacles to innovation and have caused many problems

It takes a considerable effort to evaluate and protect what John Stuart Mil has called mind relief. And it's a real possibility that once lost, those who grow up in the digital age will have a hard time regaining it. The present moment in world history is painful. Open societies are in crisis and various forms of dictatorships and mafia states, such as the work of Vladimir Putin's Russia, are on the rise. In the United States, President Donald Trump would like to establish his Mafia-style state, but he cannot, since the Constitution, other institutions and a living civil society do not allow that. It's not just the survival of open society; our entire civilization is at stake. The establishment of leaders, like Kim Jong in North Korea and as Trump in the United States, have much to do with it. Both seem willing to put us in a nuclear war in order to remain in power. But the roots of the problem seem to be deeper. The human race's ability to exploit its natural powers for both constructive purposes and destructive purposes continues to grow until our ability to govern itself properly changes, where it is now in the lowest possible position. The establishment and monopoly behaviour of American Internet giant companies is contributing greatly to the authority of the American government. These companies have often played an innovative and liberating role. But, until “Facebook” and “Google” has become more powerful, they have become obstacles to innovation and have caused many problems that we have only now begun to become aware of. Companies secure their profits by exploiting the environment. Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment. This is especially low because these companies influence the way people think and behave, without being fully aware of that. This concerns the functioning of democracy and the integrity of the elections.

Enormous Rewards

Since Internet platform companies are networks, they benefit from marginal gains, which affect their phenomenal growth. The effect of the network really is unprecedented and transformative, but it's also unstable. “Facebook” took eight and a half years to have 1 billion users and, half of that time to reach the next billion. With this step, “Facebook” will be used by all people in the world for less than three years. “Facebook” and “Google” effectively control over half of all advertising revenues. To preserve their dominance, they need to expand their networks and increase their share of attention to users. Currently, they do so by supplying users with a useful platform. The more time users spend on the platform, the more valuable they become to these companies. Moreover, since content providers cannot avoid using platforms and should accept all conditions offered by them, they also contribute to the benefits of social media companies. In fact, the extraordinary profits of these companies are largely a function of creating their responsibility and payment for content on their platforms. Companies say they simply share information. But the fact that they are distributors almost monopoly, makes them public services and should subject them to stricter rules aimed at maintaining competition, innovation, and fair and open approach. Real social media consumers are their advertisers. But a new business model is being presented slowly, based not only on advertising, but also on selling products and services, directly to the buyer. They use the data they possess, join the services they offer, and use the discriminatory prices to keep a greater share of the profits than when they would share it with consumers. This increases their profits even more, but it also jeopardises the efficiency of the market economy. Social media deceive their users by manipulating their attention, leading them towards their commercial goals and causing deliberately dependent on the services they offer. This can be extremely harmful, especially for teenagers. There is a similarity between internet platforms and gambling companies. The casinos have developed techniques to lure consumers to the extent that they squander all their money, even money they don't have.

China's government is powerful enough to protect its national champions.

Something similar and potentially irreversible is happening with human consciousness in our digital era. This is not simply a matter of attracting attention, or dependence; social media companies make people give up their autonomy. And this power to shape people's attention is increasingly focused on the hands of few companies. It takes considerable effort to assess and protect what John Stuart Mil called freedom of mind. Once lost once, she comes back with difficulty from those who grew up in the digital age. This will have major political consequences. People without freedom of mind can easily be manipulated. This danger is not just about the future; it has already played a key role in the American presidential election of 2016. On the horizon is an even more alarming perspective: an alliance between authoritarian states and large information technology monopolies rich in data, bringing together corporate surveillance systems, with now developed state-sponsored surveillance systems. This could result in a network of totalitarian control by guys who couldn't even imagine George Orwell. The countries where such unholy marriages are likely to appear first are Russia and China. Chinese IT companies in particular are quite equal to American platforms. They also enjoy full support and protection from President Xi Jinping's regime. China's government is powerful enough to protect its national champions, especially within its borders. U.S. headquarters IT monopolys are now tempted to compromise, with the goal of ensuring access to such large and fast-growing markets. The dictators of these countries can only be too happy to cooperate with them in the interest of improving their methods of control of their populations and of expanding their power and influence in the United States and the rest of the world. There is also a growing awareness about the relationship between the dominance of platform monopolies and increasing inequality. Focusing on holding a share in the hands of few individuals plays a certain role, but the position of bizarans who occupy IT giants is even more important. They have achieved monopoly powers, competing among themselves as well. Only they are large enough to swallow new companies that can then turn into competitors and only they have the resources to evacuate each other's territory.

EU uses a different definition of monopoly power, compared to US

The owners of platform giants consider themselves gentlemen of the whole- sis. In fact, they are slaves to maintaining their dominant position. They're involved in an existential battle to dominate new growth areas that open artificial intelligence, like cars without drivers. The impact of such innovations on unemployment depends on government policies. The EU, especially Nordic countries, is much more visionary in their social policies than the United States. They protect workers, not jobs. They are willing to pay for retraining or retirement of displaced workers. This gives workers in Nordic states a greater sense of security and makes them more supportive of technological innovations than employees in the United States. Internet monopolys have neither the will nor the tendency to protect society from the consequences of their actions. This turns them into public dangers and is the responsibility of regulatory authorities to protect society from them. In the United States, regulators are not strong enough to counter the political influence of monopolies. The EU is in a better position, since it does not have its own platform giants. The EU uses a different definition of monopoly power, compared to the US. While American law enforcement focuses mainly on monopolies created by purchase, EU laws prohibit the abuse of monopoly power, no matter how it has been achieved. Europe has laws far stronger than America in terms of protection of privacy and data. Furthermore, US law has adopted a strange doctrine, which measures damage as a price hike paid by consumers, for the services received. But this is almost impossible to determine, given the fact that most giant web platforms offer most of their services for free. Moreover, this doctrine does not take into account the useful data that platform companies take from their users. EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager is the champion of European approach. The EU took seven years to build a case against the “company. Google” But as a result of its success, the process of making adequate rules has accelerated rapidly. Moreover, thanks to Vestager's efforts, the European approach has begun to affect behavior in the United States. It's only a matter of time before the global domination of American Internet companies breaks down. The adjustment and taxation, preceded by Vestager, will be their elite.

(George Soros is head of Foundation Management “Soros” and “foundations Open company”

This scripture is published in Project Syndicate.