In our pocket, our car, at work or in our leisure time: large technology companies interfere in every aspect of our lives. What if they went further? In the United States, a Tech entrepreneur, Elon Musk, makes no secret of wanting to defend his own interests by supporting Donald Trump body and soul in the American presidential election which will be held on November 5. The man at the head of Tesla, Space X and the social network a collective excited by the idea of being able to influence more the course of laws and public decisions.
In an interview given to L’Express, former European MP Marietje Schaake, now director of international policy at the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University, also editorialist at Financial Times, analyzes this unprecedented and very dangerous pressure from Tech, on American but also European democracies, through takeover bids on strategic sectors and massive lobbying. The Dutchwoman recently published the work “The Tech Coup: How to save democracy from Silicon Valley” (How to Save Democracy in Silicon Valley, Princeton University Press), in which she considers how democracies can regain control of their destinies.
In the United States, in the race for the White House, an American journalist recently estimated that the real Republican “ticket” was not Donald Trump – JD Vance, but Elon Musk – Peter Thiel. Is Tech trying to take control of American democracy?
Yes, she really tries! But this in itself is nothing new: tech companies have sponsored candidates in the past in the hope that it would serve their interests. What’s different here, about the openness and outspokenness of someone like Trump about his policy agenda, is that the tradeoff is clearer. J.D. Vance [NDLR : le colistier de Donald Trump] recently suggested that the United States could withdraw from NATO if the EU regulated Elon Musk’s platforms. This is a kind of blackmail or threat before the election. Linking such serious consequences to an action on the interests of Elon Musk is something unprecedented and very dangerous.
How do democracies – here American – expose themselves to this kind of situation?
We see technology companies increasingly empowered to make decisions with serious consequences in key areas such as energy, information, space, the field of war… They are also developing critical infrastructures, satellites or submarine cables, raising many questions: what data can circulate? Who has access to it? What happens when connectivity or infrastructure is damaged? What if these infrastructures were at the origin of geopolitical conflicts? These unanswered questions are, however, at the origin of new realities, and these are eroding democratically elected power. Because companies in fact have very different objectives and obligations from those of States. But in truth, I am not surprised that they are interfering in these strategic sectors. My real concern is why democratic governments give them so much space to insert themselves.
You mention several reasons: lobbying, a lack of understanding of the issues on the part of legislators, and a still significant opacity of Big Tech technologies, making it impossible to evaluate them correctly…
First there is this initial conviction – especially in the United States – that these private companies offer the best results. But more broadly, in fact, the algorithms of technology companies are designed to generate profits and are often very opaque. For example, the lack of data available to independent researchers and journalists often leads states to exaggerate or minimize the effects of disinformation. Verification mechanisms, like community ratings on X, don’t really solve the problem of loss of trust. Either people end up thinking it’s all wrong or they don’t see the dangers. Either way, it’s bad for democracy. The other challenge is to rebuild technological expertise. It would be ideal if there existed, as for the law in legislative assemblies, this independent evaluation to which legislators, often not very specialized, could appeal. It would also help counter the influence of lobbyists, who have great resources. The latter are no longer content with traditional lobbying; they fund think tanks, academic institutions, create NGOs and organize conferences. This allows them to give the appearance of neutrality. We see this a lot today with artificial intelligence, a hot topic. Lobbying money is therefore not limited to a sum of money; it now buys debate, research and influence at all levels.
Is it too late to react? What could be the tipping point?
The American elections should be one of them. If Trump wins, what role will Musk, Thiel and other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs play? What will happen to the rules? International collaboration, particularly with China? As a reminder, technology companies all need rare earth materials, supply chain and assembly components from the Asian giant. And interests diverge on this subject with the American government. There are other examples we can imagine that could really propel this issue to the top of the political agenda. I hope so. For now, democracies lack rules preventing so much power from falling into the hands of a few corporations. When I already pointed out this problem publicly, around ten years ago, I used the example of a CEO who would have a very committed political program, and who would take advantage of his own platform to achieve it. Today, with Elon Musk and X, it is no longer a textbook case: it is reality. And now the stakes are so high and the polarization so deep between the Republican and Democratic camps that it is very difficult for a lawmaker to propose a measure against Elon Musk or action against him, but against Trump. It is therefore very important to develop safeguards, laws and rules based on fundamental principles before being confronted with this type of situation.
What weapons do democratic states have to counterattack?
We need to be clearer about the role we want these tech companies to play, not only through laws, but also through public investments. Governments, as major clients of these companies, have real power of influence. Whether for defense, cybersecurity or cloud services contracts, they can demand more favorable conditions for the public, putting forward principles of transparency, accountability and protection of civil liberties. This economic lever is often underused. Sovereignty is not limited to regulation; it also has economic means, as recently highlighted by the Draghi report on Europe’s competitiveness, which emphasizes the importance of investing in innovation according to well-defined criteria.
What do we think of the awakening of antitrust in the United States, which is leading numerous lawsuits against Big Tech, such as Google? Similar prosecutions carried out in Europe under the DMA regulations? Can dismantling counter the power these companies hold?
Antitrust laws can correct certain abuses linked to the excessive economic power of large companies. However, serious democratic problems can also be caused by smaller structures that operate without a clear legislative framework, and these problems would never be resolved by current antitrust rules. I am thinking, for example, of the damage caused by the Israeli group NSO and its Pegasus spyware. [NDLR : mis sur liste noire aux Etats-Unis en 2021]. As for dismantling companies, it is an available option, but history, as with the Microsoft affair, shows that this does not necessarily weaken them. So we shouldn’t expect these cases to magically solve all our problems.
The arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram in France, or the recent suspension of in Brazil, were seen as an awakening of democracies facing the power of the major digital platforms…
These two examples show that when there are laws, we can always enforce them. A large part of the abuses that I describe in my book on “Tech Coup” concern situations where the law does not exist. In this case, even if there is a feeling of moral indignation or concern about a situation, if you do not have the legal basis on which the French and Brazilian Ministries of Justice relied, you cannot crack down. As I said before, it then becomes much more difficult to draw these lines as new realities emerge. However, in the Durov case in France, I found the late communication from the Ministry of Justice regrettable. This created a lot of speculation and gave the impression that the state was censoring or interfering with freedom of expression. Yet the real heart of the matter is markedly different. I hope this will serve as a lesson for the authorities to be more clear and transparent when dealing with such sensitive matters. In the Durov affair, the whole world was watching, and this lack of information may have given way to misinformation.
What future do you imagine, if the influence of technology companies on States continues to expand?
We could imagine a kind of parallel governance, where companies, thanks to their growing lobbying power, their capital, their ability to attract talent, and their links with politicians, would make more and more decisions. For example, what would happen if people started protesting against the construction of new data centers near them? Would these companies call on private security companies to defend themselves? The influence of technology companies affects very concrete, physical aspects. And we underestimate the way in which this privatization of technological governance can weaken the rule of law, even as democracy is in difficulty. Often we approach the issue through news, incidents or colorful characters like Elon Musk. They are interesting, certainly. But in reality, the problem is systemic.
.