Large technology companies or Big Tech often engage in datafication, which they claim on the surface as a responsibility for “social good.” Datafication is carried out for big data processing with the statement that those who possess big data have a privileged position in proposing social solutions, whether through contact tracing, artificial intelligence to manage scarce health resources, or population tracking driven by artificial intelligence (Magalhães and COULDRY 2021). However, the use of big data for “social good” needs to be reconsidered as it can be extracted for economic interests, making Big Tech’s role in exploiting user data not purely for social good.
Big Tech Capitalism in Social Exploitation
Social projects carried out by large private companies, including Big Tech such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, and others, serve as “business models and marketing strategies” for them, widely practised in low and middle-income countries through datafication and privatization, which can undermine the role of local governments, expand markets for companies, and deepen inequality. Their role is increasingly strong on a global scale driven by COVID-19 as international society experiences habit changes that increase technology usage (Magalhães and COULDRY 2021). The digital products they develop through exploiting user data shape a new view for society on the social environment, suggesting that information provided to the public reduces the state’s role in shaping the actual social reality.
Big Tech capitalism occurs in one of the developing countries, South Africa, but certainly not limited to South Africa alone. Initially, South Africa aimed to accelerate the spread of digital technology to 26,000 public schools through the Phakisa operation. South Africa involved the World Bank, and Deloitte, 120 participants from the government, companies, labour unions, schools, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) conducted in a laboratory (Kwet 2019). Participants were instructed not to voice concerns about this program, and program details were not elaborated on to the participants. Two years later, the African National Congress (ANC) declared that the program would continue and paperless classrooms would spread nationwide.
If the program runs smoothly, the majority of South Africa’s lower to middle-class society will gain access to digital technology such as laptops, computers, and tablets after a long wait. On the surface, this program seems to support equal access to digital technology in a changing era, but the program is aimed at implanting US technology products in classrooms by combining big data surveys across the education system, and the public was unaware of this scheme (Kwet 2019).
The contribution made by Big Tech in a country for social projects has hidden motives behind wanting to help equalize digital technology, whereas developing countries synonymous with the term Global South are eager for the expansion of computer devices and internet connectivity among the lower to middle-class society (Kwet 2019). This is a threat to Global South countries shrouded with opportunity. They certainly need to demand social responsibility from Big Tech because the Global South still needs a long time to develop its digital independence and cannot yet break free from Big Tech dependency.
Although Global South countries have begun to formulate digital policies to regulate the rules of play for Big Tech, it is still the Global North countries that always take the lead, including in making digital policies. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for managing big data has a significant impact on social and economic aspects by setting limits on the use of big data for Big Tech (Aho and Duffield 2020). Meanwhile, a Global South country whose rules of play have started to become threatening for Big Tech is China through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology supervision architecture for state purposes. Although digital policies to respond to Big Tech from Global South countries are not as strict as the European Union’s, they are slowly moving in that direction.
The Response of Big Tech to the Use of Big Data in Social Responsibility
The economic dominance of Big Tech, primarily the top five, Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft cannot be avoided due to political power, which requires states to regulate this power so that Big Tech, as a political actor, has limitations within liberal-democratic-based countries. The regulation of power between public and private actors is crucial in market economies to set boundaries regarding economic activities to benefit society and not cause harm.
In a liberal-democratic system, businesses operate within the basic liberal-democratic structure where companies have the right to pursue their interests effectively within the existing framework, and social institutions ensure overall fairness and handle the implementation of liberal-democratic policies. Citizens have the right to freedom and equality, and political power is used responsibly to protect individual freedoms. Additionally, the boundaries applied to business and politics within the entire system are based on preserving freedom, equality, and efficiency. Creating economic value and providing material means for society are the main tasks of the private sector (Lindman, Makinen, and Kasanen 2023). These aspects are closely related to corporate social responsibility (CSR), which views companies as political actors providing public goods and supporting citizens’ basic rights while addressing gaps in global business governance.
Big Tech, as a global private company, has social responsibilities in liberal-democratic-based countries to meet the needs of society and support citizens’ basic rights to freedom, equality, and efficiency. In a social context, Big Tech is responsible for its users’ data. In implementing CSR, there is no one-size-fits-all approach as it depends on the conditions in which the company operates, but it can be done through industry regulation policies from the company itself or through government initiatives and pressure from relevant stakeholders, both internally and externally (Joanna and Al Achkar 2022).
Government Regulations on Big Tech in Indonesia
Indonesia, as a representative of the Global South, certainly doesn’t stand idly by in response to the dominant role of Big Tech in the country. The aim is for Big Tech not only to consider its economic activities in Indonesia but also its social impact on the public good. Indonesia’s latest regulations in response to Big Tech involve requiring digital platforms to pay Indonesian media companies for content provided on their platforms, including those owned by Big Tech. This regulation has been signed by President Joko Widodo (Haizan 2024). Additionally, there are regulations aimed at ensuring security and freedom for Big Tech as there is a proliferation of harmful content, thus ensuring user safety (Telling and Criddle 2022).
These regulations benefit Indonesia, a significant liberal-democratic country, in managing fair competition between Big Tech and Indonesian media. News plays a vital role in improving digital literacy, democracy, and public safety in Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesian media must not lose its role due to Big Tech dominance, especially considering that more than 221.5 million internet users in Indonesia primarily access information and digital content through digital platforms (Haizan 2024).
The dominance of Big Tech has led to a decline in media revenue in Indonesia from advertising. These regulations provide a new source of income for Indonesian media. Currently, news media in Indonesia are facing challenging conditions due to changing reader behaviour driven by COVID-19, AI, and media business models shifting focus away from news to sensational digital content that may not be particularly relevant (Haizan 2024). Additionally, these regulations aim to steer public opinion away from consuming trash information.
The push for these regulations requires Big Tech to prioritize quality information. Search engines like Google must prioritize news from verified media outlets accredited by the Press Council while ensuring individual security and freedom. Digital platforms need to adjust their algorithms to prioritize quality information because the rapid digital transformation has led to the spread of misinformation and dangerous hoaxes that threaten democracy, health, and public safety.
Social Responsibility of Big Tech in Indonesia
Big Tech certainly doesn’t remain passive. Big Tech companies like Meta state that, due to these regulations, they are not obliged to voluntarily pay for news content posted on their digital platforms. Users do not utilize their platforms to seek news content; rather, news media voluntarily share their content on these platforms to increase readership and viewership, not the other way around. If Big Tech refuses to broadcast news from Indonesian media because they would have to pay for it, it poses a danger to the Indonesian people as they will continue to consume low-quality information, and the “battle never ends” with Big Tech. Moreover, Big Tech has already signed regulations regarding security and freedom (Telling and Criddle 2022), which certainly regulate its economic activities significantly.
Countries are beginning to anticipate the economic dominance of Big Tech, which exploits user data in a country. States, as central actors in liberal democratic systems, are crucial in setting the rules for the benefit of their own people. Simply put, companies only pursue economic interests without considering their social impact on society. Big Tech, which often has access to user data in a country, should not only use this data for its own benefit.
Indonesia, which seeks to leverage data from news and users spread across various platforms, as well as ensure freedom and security for users on Big Tech’s digital platforms, aims to achieve its economic and social interests, and its liberal-democratic system becomes a strategic regulatory unit, which can be considered an implementation of CSR. However, the dynamics between regulations and responses from Big Tech are complex. The positions of Global South countries in responding to Big Tech vary from those of the Global North because Global North countries have digital sovereignty power, although China is moving in that direction. Therefore, state policies in social responsibility for Big Tech are crucial, in line with CSR, which does not have an absolute way of implementation, especially for Global South countries that are highly dependent on Big Tech.
