It is Nuts for Liberals to Target Big Tech
Perhaps I am biased by my political science research (e.g., 1, 2, 3), but I wince whenever I see a liberal — and it is usually liberals — single out Big Tech for criticism.
The presidency of Donald Trump leads some to conclude that all wealthy and powerful people are bad for society.
And the American companies with the largest market capitalizations are Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet (the parent of Google).
Bernie Sanders has pointed to these Big Tech companies to make points about taxation and minimum wage.
And Elizabeth Warren has even called for breaking up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, a suggestion that has supporters and opponents.
Contemporary politics are rather ugly and unfair. Republicans engage in a number of dirty tricks to subvert representative democracy and to steer outcomes of elections in their favor. This includes gerrymandering; numerous forms of voter suppression; and census alteration. The electoral college may now be considered another way by which this occurs.
One company, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, owns two of the four newspapers with the highest U.S. circulation and Fox News, which draws millions of viewers each night. Murdoch is notorious for exerting a right-wing slant upon the news. Left-wingers sometimes call for breaking up Big Tech, but they are strangely silent about the power of Rupert Murdoch.
Many other powerful conservatives attempt to steer policy, including Robert Mercer, the Kochs, and Sheldon Adelson. And President Donald Trump himself.
Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and Big Oil all influence the nation’s laws and discourse for their advantage and sometimes at the expense of broader public interests. Big Pharma keeps prescription drug prices up. Big Tobacco keeps people vaping. Big Oil tries to keep governments from addressing global warming.
Unlike these other industries, Big Tech is generally very liberal: both founders and employees.
Tech entrepreneurs (“leaders and founders”) tend to be socially and economically liberal. For example, 82% favor universal health care. Employees at Alphabet (Google), Apple, Amazon, and Facebook all gave more donations to Democratic candidates by greater than 3-to-1 margins.
Why is Big Tech liberal?
Big Tech may select for intelligence, so more competitive and selective tech companies have more intelligent employees.
High intelligence tends to lead to political leftism because:
1) High intelligence is associated with an external control ideology — that is, a perception that an individual’s station is more attributable to external factors than the individual’s own volition.
2) High intelligence is associated with greater amounts of empathy for people one does not know personally.
3) High intelligence is associated with greater amounts of trust for people one does not know personally.
Consequently, people of very high intelligence are very likely to orient toward the political left on social, economic, and foreign policy issues, and also to be more prosocial generally.
I was only able to find one Pulitzer Prize winner who made a political donation to a Republican or a Republican cause, compared with 94 who contributed to a Democrat or Democratic cause.
Markers of scholarly achievement correlate with a left-wing orientation, irrespective of whether the person continued in academia.
For example, consider those recognized early in life.
Putnam competition winners (college students unusually adept at mathematics): 10 have donated to Democrats; none to Republicans.
Finishers in the top 10 of the Intel Science Talent Search (high school students who have shown unusual promise in science): 25 have donated to Democrats; 1 to Republicans.
Big Tech may be more liberal than tech workers generally. Such findings would parallel academia, in which professors and students at more elite universities are more liberal than at other universities.
Two big reasons why liberals should not want to break up Big Tech:
1) Less bias exhibited against liberals on Big Tech platforms
It is not so much that Big Tech platforms, such as Facebook, Google, and Apple, are expected to be biased toward liberals — although this allegation has been made. It is that they are more likely to be unbiased against liberals.
While highly intelligent people orient strongly toward the left, there is also a weaker positive association between income and right-wing orientation.
Consequently, higher-ups of media conglomerates that shape American opinions are more likely to orient toward the political right.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is known for exerting a right-wing slant upon the news at the possible expense of the truth. Its chief anchor, Sean Hannity, just about gets his pom-poms out whenever he is talking about Donald Trump.
A break-up of Big Tech would leave a power vacuum that could be filled by ten Rupert Murdochs.
2) Philanthropy
The billionaires of Big Tech exert a favorable impact on the world with their philanthropy. Because Big Tech is constituted of highly intelligent, scientific-oriented people, their philanthropy is different from the typical billionaires and multimillionaires — perhaps more efficient and more in line with liberal values.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is a favorite left-wing whipping boy. What’s he done with his wealth? He bought the Washington Post and supports legitimate journalism in it — keeping it out of the hands of Rupert Murdoch.
He pledged $2 billion to homeless families.
And he gave $10 billion to address global warming — a gift that was called a “token” by one observer. It is a token that apparently no other billionaire has because it is the largest-ever donation to address global warming.
He has also supported the science of space exploration.
Microsoft’s Bill Gates started the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest private foundation in the world.
Google’s Sergey Brin has given millions of dollars to medical research.
And Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave $100 million to Newark public schools. That was for starters.
In 2015, he started a foundation with his wife Priscilla Chan, donating 99% of the couple’s wealth from their Facebook shares over their lifetimes. The foundation focuses on science, education, and justice and opportunity. They aim to have cures for all diseases within their children’s lifetimes.
Other billionaires are using their wealth to buy sports teams. But these are the ones some liberals are going after?
The whole situation reminds me of a scene in a documentary I recently watched about journalists Jimmy Breslin and Pete Hamill.
In 1993, incoming New York Post owner Abe Hirschfeld fired Hamill, who had been a well-liked editor-in-chief.
Staff revolted. They wrote articles in the newspaper exhorting readers to demand Hirschfeld’s ouster. They screamed at Hirschfeld during his press conference.
And in one scene, a middle-aged man held up a tie he was gifted by Hirschfeld, lit the tie on fire, dropped it to the ground, pointed his middle finger downward at the tie, and yelled, “Fuck you, Abe! Fuck you!”
Hirschfeld decided to sell.
And into the Post’s newsroom waltzed Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch bought the newspaper and carried on Murdoch-media customs: editorializing in the news sections; sensationalizing; misinformation; and conservative bias.
If Big Tech is dismantled, it creates a power vacuum. Who would fill it but literally Rupert Murdoch?
And probably others on the right.
What Republicans are going to try to check their power?