E-Paper
Sign In
Sun, Nov 09, 2025 | Jumada al-Awwal 19, 1447 | Fajr 05:13 | DXB 
28.3°C
iPhone | iPad
Android
Great firewalls to rein in Big Tech. Why not?
We didn't see them coming, and businesses and governments didn't bother to frame rules of engagement.
No one took me seriously some months ago when I said the Internet is broken. "Countries and governments should consider erecting firewalls to protect themselves from the march of the tech conglomerates who are now exerting excessive interference in our lives," I said while discussing the state of the media in general and print media in particular.
"Let's make social media pay for our content, or create social and retail media that works for us." I was met with scorn and sniggers. "Impossible, impractical, we have come a long way that we cannot survive without these tech giants," was the response. Some call it regulation, I call it online nationalism which controls who peddles what on the Net. They laughed at what they thought was a Luddite proposal.
Recommended For You
I was thinking something on the lines of an Intranet for individual countries, a system which China has already put in place right under our noses and uncritical eyes with a great degree of success (WeChat, Sina Weibo, Tencent, Youku, Baidu, Alibaba, anyone?). Regulated? Yes. Censored? Depends on which way you look at it. Tech watchers call it the Great Firewall of China where only government sanctioned apps and social networks are allowed to flourish. "But that's China," they said. "If China can do it why can't other countries come up with online communities and networks that chat, buy and sell?" I countered.
Think about it. In most parts of the world, retail, ads, rides, media and relationships have been dominated by Western online companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Uber. That's unfair. They swallow up competition and restrict innovation in the name of disruption.
I believe governments should frame rules to disrupt Big Tech's foreign expansions (and private incursions). Why shouldn't countries intervene and stop them from monopolising our lives? Something sovereign, something unique ... country-specific online ecosystems that protect national interests in all sectors is an idea that has already seen a fair amount of success in controlled environments like China.
But China is different, said my critics who thought I was talking of going back to the dark Internet age. I reminded them that we are already in one, where the Dark Net and Deep Dark Net indeed exist.
Moscow even pulled the plug on the Web recently, albeit briefly to see if the system works in an emergency, like a cyberattack. The country's parliament, the Duma, passed a bill in April that allows the government to move traffic away from foreign servers. All to prevent a foreign power from shutting down Russia's Net if all hell breaks loose.
It's a form of censorship, digital slavery, critics point out. Our privacy is taken for granted and we are okay with it, so why complain when the Net is not cast wider? If Big Brother ain't watching you, Big Tech will. Same difference. The new technocratic order knows what is best for you - they read minds, they listen in while you transact and connect through them. Now there's a growing disenchantment in democracies in Europe and the United States against Big Tech. Politicians fear the rise of an all-powerful virtual technocracy that threatens their governing interests.
So when liberal Democrats in the US who once drooled over Silicon Valley want large technology companies regulated or splintered, I was both intrigued and interested in what they had to say.
"Today, everything is connected to the Internet; it is the foundation on which our economy, democracy and attention rest," US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said glibly. "Unwarranted, concentrated economic power in the hands of a few is dangerous to democracy - especially when digital platforms control content. The era of self-regulation is over," she tweeted after she was the victim of a morphing attach.
Republicans and Democrats cutting across party lines are concerned about Facebook and Google's dominance. An antitrust probe is being readied - the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department will lead those investigations that will determine whether Big Tech is killing competition, innovation and entrepreneurship.
Meanwhile, in Europe, Facebook, Google and Apple, are being slapped with fines for alleged tax evasion, privacy and copyright infringements. My assessment of the fraught situation is this: governments have a right to Big Tech's big money. They must be vigilant so as to not cede control to an emerging all-consuming technocracy.
A Democratic candidate for the US presidential election, Elizabeth Warren, has even suggested that Big Tech companies be broken up to protect national interests and local businesses. Her plan envisages Amazon giving up control of Whole Foods, an organic food company, and for Facebook to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram.
She argues that these tech firms are a platform, "a place where people come to buy and sell goods." They also collect, aggregate information about people and use that data to lure people back into that platform - a perfect recipe for domination after they crush the competition.
The truth is this - Big Tech has gotten too big, and we didn't see them coming. And even if we did, businesses on the ground and governments didn't bother to frame the rules of engagement. To salvage the situation a global online regulatory mechanism is in order. Europe is taking baby steps on this; the US is following suit. It's still a broken-down approach but China is ahead of the game with its own virtual ecosystem in place.
If countries and global business cannot breach the Great Firewall of China, why not create their own versions to protect national interests and businesses? The liberals will say it goes against the grain of globalisation. I say, the Internet is broken anyway.
Don’t just scroll. Know it all. Sign up for your daily UAE news fix.
Get the top stories of the day right in your inbox.
