The news is abuzz with the recent ruling against Google, where a US judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in ad tech, a finding echoed by the European Commission's substantial fines [https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-finds-google-holds-illegal-online-ad-tech-monopolies-2025-04-17/], [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anthony-norton-46454a157_the-european-commission-announced-on-5-september-activity-7370699952978722816-FwKo]. On the surface, this might seem like a victory for fair competition, but as I reflect, I can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu, coupled with a renewed urgency for more profound change.
A Monopolist's Pyrrhic Victory?
It's striking to observe that despite these significant legal pronouncements, many commentators, like Tim Peter, suggest Google has, in essence, won its antitrust battle [https://timpeter.com/blog/google-antitrust-win-big-tech/]. The remedies imposed, while requiring some data sharing, notably stop short of forcing a breakup of core assets like the Chrome browser or the Android operating system. This leaves Google's foundational sources of data and its market dominance largely intact. The argument is that competitors, even with access to some of Google's data, still face monumental challenges in building comparable capabilities and achieving widespread distribution, let alone finding sustainable monetization models in an AI-driven landscape where even successful companies struggle with profitability [https://timpeter.com/blog/google-antitrust-win-big-tech/].
Echoes from the Past: My Long-Held Concerns
This outcome, focusing on remedies rather than structural transformation, takes me back to discussions I initiated years ago. As early as 2019, when the US government began hinting at splitting up monopolies, I drew parallels to the breakup of Standard Oil, explicitly stating: "Standard Oil was broken up. Big Tech is similar" [http://mylinkedinposting.blogspot.com/2019/06/us-govt-names-google-amazon-hints-at.html]. I argued then that simply identifying these companies as "digital gatekeepers" was insufficient. My proposed "real solution" was to "force them to pay their users for the PERSONAL DATA they collect and profit from." Seeing how things have unfolded today, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. The current legal actions still seem to circle around the edges of this fundamental issue.
Again, in February 2019, when Facebook was facing a multi-billion dollar fine over privacy practices, I questioned whether we had "time to keep 'negotiating' forever" [http://mylinkedinposting.blogspot.com/2019/02/do-we-have-time-to-keep-negotiating-for.html]. I advocated for a proactive approach, emphasizing my "Digital Dividend from Demographic Data [4D]" framework as a means for countries like India to avoid endless negotiations and ensure individuals benefit from the data they generate.
My vision of advertising's future, articulated in 2018, where dynamic, contextual ads could be delivered almost directly to one's thoughts through connected devices, already foreshadowed the immense power and ethical dilemmas of unchecked data leverage [http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2023/07/manipulative-advertising-you-aint-seen-nothin-yet.html]. The finding of "illegal monopolies in ad tech" is a testament to the unchecked consolidation of power that I had anticipated years ago. It feels like a validation of my concerns, but also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas.
The Path Forward: Empowering the Individual
The current rulings, while acknowledging Google's monopolistic behavior, appear to implement solutions that, as Melvin Wilson aptly put it, "barely scratched the surface" and feel "more like maintenance than transformation" [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/melvinwilson_google-advertising-searchwars-activity-7371260344347955200-u8R2]. The data-sharing remedies discussed in the Tim Peter article, while a step, may not truly level the playing field without a more fundamental shift in how personal data is valued and controlled. The challenges of AI development and deployment, which I've discussed previously in blogs like "AMIGO-MA bids well for Biden" [http://emailothers.blogspot.com/2023/09/amigo-ma-bids-well-for-biden.html] and "Revenge of AI" [http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2016/09/revenge-of-ai.html], only amplify the concerns about deep-pocketed players maintaining their advantage.
My earlier propositions for a "Digital Dividend from Demographic Data" were not merely about fines or minor adjustments to market behavior. They were about recalibrating the very foundation of the digital economy, recognizing individuals as rightful stakeholders in the data they generate. If we truly want to foster genuine competition and prevent future monopolies, we must empower users by giving them agency over their personal data and a direct stake in its economic value. This, to me, remains the most potent solution for dismantling digital gatekeepers and ensuring innovation serves everyone, not just a select few.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment