Is a Biden administration good or bad news for big tech?

Nobody seems to be able to agree on whether a Biden presidency is good or bad for the tech industry. Although an end to the chaos of the Trump era will undoubtedly be welcomed in Silicon Valley, there are suggestions that the new administration’s agenda and attitude could be cause for concern.

The reality of a Biden-led techlash is unclear. At the moment, we’re dealing with a whirlwind of speculation. This might be frustrating to many onlookers, but it matters because this is a particularly important moment in a decade of important moments. The extent to which big tech is able to shape politics and society for years to come is at a crossroads. Indeed, the ripples of his administration’s decisions aren’t only limited to the U.S. – they will have a significant impact around the world.

Moreover, from a left perspective, it’s vital to be mindful of how the tech-critical light in which Biden has been cast is leveraged by big tech as a means of laundering its reputation. In other words, we need to closely monitor how any action a Biden presidency takes is used as an alibi to further consolidate the industry’s power.

We also need to be careful to not lump every company and facet of the tech industry in together. It’s tempting to of talk about ‘big tech’ and the tech industry as if it were a homogenous thing. I’m regularly guilty of this and I imagine it could be a habit that’s hard to break. However, by focusing on challenges and problems caused by different aspects of the tech industry, we might find more pragmatic ways of solving them. We’ll also be able to more clearly judge how extensively Biden wants to reform things.

How might Biden clamp down on big tech?

There appears to be agreement that Biden will push through the antitrust case against Google started under President Trump. There is even some speculation as to whether Biden will expand its scope. TechCrunch, for example, speculates as to whether the president-elect will kick things further and “open additional cases into Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.” In the MIT Tech Review, meanwhile, Eileen Guo quotes Charlotte Slaiman (director of competition policy at Public Knowledge), who makes the point that “there are actually more competition concerns around Google that could be included in a broader complaint.”

Biden and the gig economy

However, an article published today in Protocol suggests that its the gig economy part of the tech industry that could feel the most pressure from Biden.

Interestingly, one of the reasons for this is precisely because other aspects of legislation – such as antitrust and section 230 – could prove difficult to build the consensus required to enact legislation. All of these areas, writes Emily Birnbaum “have deep partisan fissures.” If Republicans retain control over the Senate, it could prove difficult to drive through substantial change.

There’s no definite evidence that Biden will come out gunning for the likes of Uber and Lyft. However, Birnbaum notes a document produced by the Biden team – called “THE BIDEN PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING WORKER ORGANIZING, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND UNIONS” – is direct in its attitude to the contractual nature of gig economy work.”Employer misclassification of ‘gig economy’ workers as independent contractors deprives these workers of legally mandated benefits and protections,”it states.

A change in tone?

Even if it’s true that it’s going to be tough for Biden to enact meaningful change in relation to the tech industry (assuming he wants to, of course), the change in tone will be welcomed by some.

The Biden campaign’s letter to Mark Zuckerberg blasting the company for the way it was handling Trump’s election interference claims, for example (sent back in September), underlined to many that he would adopt a very different posture to that of his 2008 running mate. And, more recently, the fact that a high level staffer would continue the rhetoric against Facebook on Twitter – claiming the social media platform is “shredding the fabric of our democracy” – suggests that we’ll be seeing an administration that is interested in game-playing spectacle (like Trump) or technocratic chumminess (like Obama).

Empty gestures and rhetoric

But this is all speculative. Although rhetoric is matters, it’s only half the story. When you see high profile Silicon Valley executives invited into Biden’s transition campaign – many in spots that don’t even seem relevant to their areas of expertise – it should send serious warning signs.

Sure, it’s easy to dismiss such cynicism. Some might argue these moves are sensible and pragmatic. Given the power and influence tech companies have over huge aspects of the economy and society, why wouldn’t figures from that milieu be brought into the fold? But with every space in the corridors of power that is taken up with another tech industry figure, the more that its implicit biases and aims will shape and define the vision political leadership.

The transition team might ultimately be of little import (as easy as it is to criticise). But things will be different when Biden builds his team for the world after his inauguration. There are many rumours that would make anyone with a critical perspective on big tech uneasy (Meg Whitman and Eric Schmidt, for example), but perhaps one of the most worrying is Seth Harris. He was named on a list of potential cabinet members published by The New York Times last week.

Seth Harris and the return of compromise politics

Harris worked in the Labor Department during the Obama years, and is currently inside the Biden camp. He’s a figure likely to espouse compromise, which could be the death knell for meaningful change. Back in 2015 he helped write a paper which tried to solve the worker v. contractor debate by suggesting a third category of worker. This Bloomberg article from 2016 explains how its supposed to work: “independent workers would be granted some of the benefits accorded to regular employees, including payroll tax contributions from their employers. But the designation would exclude some guarantees, such as a minimum wage and overtime pay.”

If Harris does take up a senior position in Biden’s cabinet, we face a return to the politics of compromise. Some might suggest that is precisely what’s needed after a period of divisiveness, but compromise will only allow large tech companies to consolidate their power further. At best it might allow for some temporary pushback against the ills caused by platform misinformation, anticompetitive practices, and the gig economy. At worst it will provide a cover story that allows companies to continue in the same manner.

What can we do?

Biden might not be a technocrat like Obama. But he is certainly more of a technocrat than a radical. As I’ve mentioned, that might be appealing – the world can now let Biden and his team take charge without having to worry about another Twitter storm or diplomatic crisis. But as soon as we take our eye of the machinations of power and influence, they will start to become increasingly more comfortable.

We can’t let that happen – regardless of Biden’s position.