France was the first country to ask payments to its media firms for using their content. Australia followed suit. Google’s response is to point out the use of its search engine is free, and if it is forced to pay, such free use is at risk. It is too early to say whether Google will implement its threat, but there is a possibility that business model of tech firms may change — the way they operate may change. At the heart of all this is data dominance. By offering free services, firms earn by data gathered which allows them to offer superior advertisement services to their clients. In case of retail giants, the data may allow them to sell their own products by making use of data about the competitive products.

Governments expect these firms to share data and make the data public after suitably anonymising it. However, this is not easy. Data collected by the Government is easy to share relatively. However, a business firm cannot be asked to share data to benefit the competition. Even consumers would not like tech firms to share data with others, though they get free services from them. Consumers get ‘takeout’ to download their data while leaving and migrating to other services. Few use this. Government will have to encourage competition as these tech giants are known to stifle it.

Social media do play a vital role in the political system of different nations. Political leaders and their supporters engage the voters through the social media. Thus these media must be fair in conducting themselves while propagating political views. Facebook has hate-speech prohibitions in its policy. At times the hateful content could instigate violence. It intervenes to control expression on its platform if the postings fall foul of the Facebook policy. A recent Wall Street Journal report revealed that a senior executive of Facebook in India repeatedly intervened to protect posts which were biased in favour of the ruling party. It thus derailed the Facebook policy and proved that the processes are not robust enough. The company tries to be in the good book of the powers that be.

It is necessary to have internal reforms. Otherwise, it will cost the platform a great deal, and also cost a lot to the countries in which the media operate. They should be neutral to the dispensation in power. There is a political risk otherwise. There should not be meddling in the democratic processes. Accountability is one of the most important issues to be dealt with and is an ever-evolving subject of importance.

Facebook can face a backlash from advertisers who may shift their budgets to other platforms after halting advertising on Facebook.

There is enough evidence globally that social media firms like Facebook are no longer innocent platforms they once claime to be. ( Financial Express Edit, 4th Sept.2020.) They earn huge revenues and are thus responsible for what is posted. They, on their own, have developed algorithms for detecting and then taking down various types of hate speech or content. They have systems to report hate speech, supposing their own system fail to detect them. Facebook has informed its audience that it can take down any content that could increase regulatory or legal risks for it.

Just like traditional media, social media must be held accountable for what is posted on its platform. The difference here is that social media cannot prevent the publication of a story, whereas an editor of a newspaper can. The issue is the action taken after the publication.

Apple and Google have been taking off apps which violate their policy. Of late, this power has become louder. Some app developers call it ‘Apple’s highway robbery.‘ Epic Games company’s Fortnite has been taken off. It has sued Apple for that.

App makers are now uniting to oppose Apple and Google’s unbridled power. They formed the Coalition for App Fairness, a non-profit group to protect their rights. The thirteen initial members include Spotify, Basecamp, Epic and Match Group, which has apps like Tinder and Hinge. This Coalition will be the collective voice for many.

These companies face anti-trust cases. They are being scrutinised for App Store tactics. Apps kept silent for fear of retaliation, but now they are emboldened. Their tight grip on the apps must be loosened. They charge a 30% fee for payments made inside apps. It hampers the small players capacity to compete.

The Coalition has published a list of 10 principles of fair app practices. It includes a more transparent process for getting the app approved and the right to communicate directly with users. The developers should not be compelled to use the payment systems of the publishers.

All participants in the Coalition will contribute a membership fee towards this effort.

The General Data Protection Regulation is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy in the European Union and the European Economic Area. It also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas. It was drafted in 2016 and is implemented since 2018.

The seven key principles of the GDPR are i. lawfulness, fairness and transparency, ii. purpose limitation, iii. data minimisation, iv. accuracy, v. storage limitation, vi. integrity and confidentiality (security), vii accountability.

It regulates and protects personal data of EU citizens. It applies to processing carried out by organisations operating within EU. It also applies to organisations outside the EU.It also applies to organisations outside the EU that offer goods and services to individuals, in the EU.The GDPR gives individuals in the EU.The GDPR gives individual power over the use of personal data and holds organisations accountable for their data collection and usage practices.

In organisations, there is Data Protection Officer who works with C-level executives and other senior leadership to identify properly and map out data inventory and processes, perform risk assessments, and conduct gap analyses.

TikTok owned by ByteDance from China, was reportedly downloaded by over 175 million times in the US. It was shut down by a presidential order. TikTok Global subsidiary based in the US was created with stakes for Oracle and Walmart. The source code for TikTok was to be under American oversight. However, China is inclined to restrict the export of the source code. The moral of the story — TikTok’s restructuring was necessary on account of concerns for data security.

Tech companies grew into giant international companies as they aggregate data. It fosters global inequality and could spread misinformation.

US law obliges global tech companies to make available personal data of foreign citizens to national enforcement agencies. India too has to follow a data localisation strategy to foster data security, to create domestic value and to encourage its own national champions.

Foreign firms would like to leverage India’s market size. They have to fall in line with India’s data protection law. India must protect a right to privacy of the citizens. Their personal data cannot be the sovereign property of Indian State or Indian companies.

India could use a template like EU’s GDPR laws.

Digital Platforms Google and Facebook earn revenues by displaying news content while incurring zero cost for news gathering. Australian code expects them to share the revenues with the local news producers.

The Australian code envisages a time-bound process of bargaining and /or negotiation between the digital platforms and news producers. There could be mediation and arbitration. The arbitrator must assess the direct revenues and indirect benefits such as customer acquistion, loyalty accruing to the digital platforms by displaying local news, the costs of which are borne by news producers. The award should not place undue burden on digital platforms’ commercial interests.

Australia seems to have belled the cat. Other governments do not regulate US tech companies for fear of displeasing the US government.

The new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provided for new Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) which will regulate false and misleading advertising and will take action to punish the offenders, whether through fines, discontinuance or alteration of the ad, or even jail.

The ASCI proposes to the government for a co-regulating role against false and misleading advertisement, following the dilution of its powers by the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Though ASCI had no legal powers, it was reasonably successful in acting against the erring parties.

ASCI has a robust system of scrutiny to establish whether the advertising is false or misleading. It has a dispute panel, a system for fast-tracking cases, and a system for review process. They have the technical expertise and the organisation to scrutinise complaints. They can continue to do so, and report their decision to CCPA.

The CCPA can then exercise its legal powers and can take penal action as it deems fit.

ASCI new entertains complaints either suo moto or by receiving it from consumers and other parties. It has two Consumer Complaints Councils. Cases are heard and action is taken within 30 days. The compliance is voluntary.

ASCI can spread awareness on the subject and provide assistance to CCPA if and when it is sought.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has a provision for the central government to designate by notification, any statutory body, to exercise powers of the central authority. It is to be seen whether ASCI will be designated as such.

ASCI has four chapters that define its role — looking at misleading claims, things offensive and indecent, those unsafe or harmful for consumers and unfairness in competition. The CCPA is mainly concentrating on the first chapter.

Google Play suspended Paytm app and Paytm First Games app for several hours. The former was restored. Paytm and Google Pay are competitors as payment apps. Google advanced the cause of online gambling while taking off Paytm.

Google’s Android drives close to 99 per cent cell phones in India. Android users load apps through Google Play Store. Paytm has 50 million users. Google’s dominance in Android space should not be used to muscle out its rivals. However, Google’s reasoning mentioned online betting. Paytm and First Game both connect to First Games fantasy sports service. Here fantasy teams are chosen by users. The team mates are real players from real teams. These games generate real cash awards. Other similar apps from other countries too have been pulled out. Google is American company where the laws ban online casinos and online sports betting. Elsewhere say in Europe and Australia, the laws are liberal. They allow online betting. India allows games of skills ( such as fantasy sports and quizzes) online for cash rewards, but prohibits betting on sports events. Google is extra cautious in other jurisdictions and bans apps deemed to be illegal in the USA.

It leads to situations where Google Play does not allow the playing of games which are legal in India. Fantasy IPL has a huge following in India. Fantasy football is the craze elsewhere. These are games of skill where real life players as the performers are chosen. Google should revise its policy where such games are legal.

An app store should not put a layer above the local government and regulator. It cannot decide the destiny of Indian startups.

Fortnite is a game of skill, strategy and ability to create different worlds and battle arenas. It was launched in 2017, and could gather 350 million users across the world. It earned $1.8 billion in revenue.

It is a free game. It earned revenue by selling merchandise through app stores. Apple used to charge 30 per cent on any such transaction, as against the usual 15 per cent. Epic Games negotiated with Apple for a better deal but Apple stuck to its guns. Fortnite then bypassed Apple and started selling direct, offering discount of 20 percent. Apple took Fortnite and all other Epic games off its App store in retaliation. So did Google. Epic has sued the company.

These distribution platforms are the monopolies. They are rich in revenue and reach. Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon are such media platforms. Their audiences are available to newspapers, music firms, broadcasters, film studios or game on their terms. If these do not work out, a firm is locked out of the global market.

Recently Google Play had taken off the popular Paytm app saying that it violated Google policy but was restored a couple of hours later on assuring compliance.

This docu-drama has been released on Netflix. It tells us how our mind is controlled in myriad ways by social media platforms. All the strategies have been implemented deliberately, though the efficiency with which they worked out may not have been predicted. The ‘like’ button has tremendous consequences, though when it was being developed at ‘Facebook’ the team kept it as an expression of love and positivity. There are instances where a lack of ‘likes’ could lead to depression. In fact, we have been seduced by technology, and are at its mercy. The film is not something new, but it puts together the abstract concepts into a scary whole.

Mr. Rosenten is on camera here. He is from Silicon Valley. The narrative is built by the employees who were associated with social media to begin with. Many techies left their remunerative jobs for a variety of reasons. There are ethical considerations. The media is addictive. It has the potential to polarize the society. It propagates fake news. It is a crazy world. Is this normal or are we under a spell?

Smartphones have cast their spell. We are hooked to these devices for several hours in a day. They deliver data ceaselessly. We love tagging Facebook has used this feature to its advantage. Scrolling is magnetic. Keep pulling down and refresh. There is something fresh and new at the top. This interface is akin to a casino.

There are funny dramatizations. There are all seeing and all-knowing algorithms. There are invites to friends to drive up the usage.

They collect tremendous personal information. We are lured by advertisements. In the process, data is being collected. The feeds then reinforce our beliefs. We are immersed into alternative realities.The data is subjected to AI to make the user a puppet and the behaviour of this puppet could be predicted by AI. It tries to increase the size of the audience and weaves an emotional illusion around the puppet-like users. There are clickbaits of likes, comments, tagging and messages

Many feel that as we have the power of click. We are the controllers. In fact we are the products for companies. Their consumers are the advertisers.

Social media could be paid a few lac dollars to tilt the opinion of 7 billion people in the world in our favour. This is an opportunity for a corporate or a political organisation.

Social networks blur fact and fiction. They could be a threat to democracy. Maybe, the whole docu-drama itself is a concoction — but it has the ringtone of truth.

Tristan Harris, formerly design Strategist of Google, feels that internet has become a force to destablise a country with the least effort, and within the boundaries of law.

Big Tech companies become too powerful. In the US, they passed anti-trust legislation since long to lessen the dominance of big companies. Sherman Act(1890), Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) and the Clayton Act, are examples of such legislation. To begin with, it was felt that if a company dominates a market, it would rule the prices charged for its products. These days the concern about the prices has taken a backseat. Instead, there is a concern about the preferential treatment these companies accord to their own products. Otherwise, their products are free, say Google and Facebook.

There is cut-throat competition between the tech companies. MS and Google compete in search engines, operating systems and clouds. MS and Amazon compete in cloud and AI. Facebook, Google, and Amazon vie for the advertising revenue. Apple and MS and Google compete in cell phone applications.

What are the issues here? to shut out rivals. To use users’ data.

One way out is to allow the companies to operate as they do, or to maintain the status quo. Another way is to place restrictions on them and force them to share innovations with rivals. There is one more option. They should share their patents and help new startup to emerge. Bell Labs allowed its patents of transistors and lasers to be used by Fairchild and Intel. IBM’s restrictions helped MS. Anti-trust action against MS prevented it from dominating Internet. Therefore, google and others could emerge in Internet Space.

India has MRTP Act (1969) and Competition Commission of India Act.