Today, we’re diving into the complex world of digital media regulation and Big Tech’s global influence with Desiree Sainthrope, a legal expert renowned for her work in drafting and analyzing trade agreements. With a deep understanding of global compliance, intellectual property, and the legal implications of emerging technologies like AI, Desiree offers a unique perspective on how tech giants are shaping the regulatory landscape. In this interview, we explore the findings of a groundbreaking investigation into Big Tech’s lobbying efforts, the tactics they employ to resist regulation, specific case studies of legislative battles, and the broader implications for journalism and democratic societies.
Can you walk us through the key findings of the investigation known as “The Invisible Hand of Big Tech”?
Certainly. This investigation was a massive collaborative effort involving over 40 journalists from 17 media outlets across 13 countries. It spanned nine months and aimed to uncover how Big Tech companies are working to influence or weaken regulations that govern the online information space. The project documented nearly 3,000 lobbying actions worldwide, revealing the staggering scale of these efforts to shape policies in their favor, often at the expense of democratic principles and fair journalism practices.
What can you tell us about the scope and tactics of Big Tech’s lobbying efforts as revealed by this project?
The investigation identified 2,977 lobbying actions across ten countries and the European Union, involving over 1,400 company representatives and more than 2,500 public officials. The tactics are sophisticated and varied—think revolving-door lobbying, where former public officials are hired to push corporate agendas, or astroturfing, which involves funding seemingly independent initiatives that actually serve Big Tech’s interests. These strategies create a facade of grassroots support or neutrality while undermining regulations meant to ensure transparency and fairness.
Let’s zoom in on a specific case. What happened with Brazil’s “Fake News Bill,” and how did Big Tech respond to it?
In Brazil, the “Fake News Bill” introduced in 2020 aimed to combat disinformation, increase transparency in political ads and content moderation, and ensure fair compensation for journalistic content. Companies like Google and Meta launched a fierce campaign against it, holding over 200 meetings with lawmakers and running paid ads with exaggerated claims, such as the bill supposedly “banning the Bible.” Their aggressive opposition ultimately led to the bill being scrapped by 2023, showcasing how powerful their influence can be in derailing legislation.
How have Big Tech companies resisted regulations in other regions, like Indonesia, according to the investigation?
In Indonesia, Google strongly opposed regulations that would have required compensation for news publishers using its platform. They managed to evade binding obligations related to algorithm transparency and sector-wide revenue sharing. This resistance highlights a broader pattern where Big Tech leverages its global presence to sidestep local laws, often arguing that national regulations don’t apply due to data processing occurring extraterritorially, as seen in places like Ecuador and Colombia as well.
The investigation mentions “shadowy lobbying networks.” Can you explain what that means and how they operate?
These networks are essentially decentralized systems of influence that obscure Big Tech’s direct involvement. They operate through intermediaries like former officials—take Brazil’s ex-President Michel Temer, for instance, who acted as an unofficial go-between during platform regulation talks. Then there are front groups or trade associations that appear independent but push anti-regulation agendas aligned with Big Tech’s goals. These setups allow companies to influence policy discreetly, making it harder to trace their fingerprints back to the source.
One major issue highlighted is Big Tech’s pushback against laws requiring payment for journalistic content. Can you elaborate on why this is such a contentious battleground?
Absolutely. Laws known as bargaining codes mandate that platforms like Google and Meta pay for the journalistic content they use, which is critical for sustaining independent media. These companies resist because it impacts their bottom line and challenges their control over content distribution. They’ve countered with strategies like signing secretive deals with select media outlets, launching PR campaigns framing regulation as bureaucratic overreach, and even enlisting diplomatic pressure from foreign governments to sway local policies.
What are your thoughts on initiatives like Google News Showcase, which was promoted as a major investment in journalism?
On the surface, Google News Showcase, billed as a $1 billion investment in journalism, seems beneficial. However, the investigation suggests it creates financial dependency among newsrooms, weakening their leverage in bargaining code negotiations. It also potentially serves as a shield against copyright claims, especially as these companies train AI models using journalistic content. It’s a clever move by Big Tech to appear supportive while maintaining control over the narrative and avoiding stricter obligations.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the future of digital media regulation in light of Big Tech’s influence?
I think we’re at a critical juncture. If policymakers continue to yield to Big Tech’s lobbying, we risk further erosion of independent journalism and citizens’ access to reliable information. However, there’s growing awareness and pushback, especially through cross-border investigations like this one. I foresee a tug-of-war where stronger international cooperation and public pressure could lead to more robust frameworks, but only if governments prioritize democratic values over corporate interests. The next few years will be pivotal in determining whether we can rebalance the power dynamics in the digital space.
