With great force comes a great responsibility: How to make Big Tech responsible for its global influence
11 mins read

With great force comes a great responsibility: How to make Big Tech responsible for its global influence

The “Big Tech” or large multinational companies that manufacture, own and operate the digital ecosystems and the physical infrastructure that constitute Cyberspace-Har state-like influence and promote its interests with a range that competes with powerful state actors.

But when these companies become more powerful, the systems that are intended to maintain liability for responsibility appear to be poorly equipped to do so. Where large technology companies cherry picks the privileges for state -like power, without submitting themselves the associated responsibility, they risk breaking public confidence. In order to preserve and strengthen the international order after the Second World War, which is already facing deep challenges, there should be a clear bill with Big Tech’s agency as influential international actors.

Criticism of great technology is plentiful. Accusations vary from Competition -limiting practiceThe neglect of social injuriesThe Democratic intrusionThe and Humanscape one. And these problems are not without merits: uncontrolled business power threatens society’s cohesion and traditional board structures. Nevertheless, relentlessly condemns of legal and very successful companies risk paralysis. When each deficiency is deadly, we risk letting the enemy perfect enough. The challenge lies in finding an intermediate ground – recognizing Big Tech’s power can be a force in social benefit, while creating sensible mechanisms to ensure their responsibilities.

The increase in big tech reflects a seismic change in international relationships. Power has leaked from the government’s corridors. It is now practiced in data centers, server rooms and underwater cables. By acknowledging this, the British Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology in November last year claimed that countries should approach great technology with “humility” and treat them as nation states. Recently have some of Most exclusive places at President Donald Trump’s inauguration was taken by powerful major technical managers – fill the space that is usually reserved for elected officials. Their presence and prominent reflects how the international order changes. It’s not just multipoles but multistakeholder.

The question should then not only be whether to accept Big Tech’s influence, but also how to channel it responsibly. We propose three possible paths. First, a large technical formal membership grants international organizations. Second, improve and expand existing treaties and national legislation with an increased focus on enforcement. Finally, encouraging companies to adopt transparent reporting on their global activities. The solution is uncertain, but a common goal is within reach: make major techniques responsible for their power.

Establish and exert influence

The term “Big Tech” recalls inheritance descriptions such as “Big Oil”, “Big Banks” and “Big Pharma”, which highlights the scale and dominance for multinational companies that shape influential industries. Unlike its predecessors, however, Big Tech has a unique, quasi-sovers power over Cyberspace-a recognized war domain and spine in our economic and social interactions. Their control extends beyond monopolizing products – it gives them the ability to shape the rules, norms and processes that govern our digital lives.

Big Tech’s quasi-state power can be understood through three distinct functions: diplomacy, state-like involvement in armed conflicts and crises and ownership and operation of domains through which permit interactions are mediated (eg Cyberspace).

Take Diplomati: During the first Trump administration, Microsoft requires one Digital Geneva Convention to establish international rules that protect civilians from state -led cyber threats. While the initiative stopped in the middle of diplomatic butter, it revealed how large technology companies began to think about their role in the world. In 2020 Microsoft went on and established one UN representation office in New York. Two years later, the UN responded in nature by creating the Secretary -General Messenger on technology. These traits emphasize how much technology embeds itself into international institutions. State actors note. Denmark was the first country that appoint A dedicated technical ambassador, a trend that is now being reflected by several states that are trying to engage Big Tech on equal terms.

When it comes to armed conflict, large technology companies have played an important role in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Starlink has ensured mostly uninterrupted connection for Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian government Migrated critical data and government services to the cloud to protect against Russian attacks, and private companies have collected intelligenceThe Cured goalsand responded to incidents. This level of involvement in the war goes beyond the traditional role of suppliers or entrepreneurs. It is similar to a form of deputation, whereby private companies are allowed to carry out government -like activities under specific circumstances. For the most part, these activities reflect how companies use an opportunity to raise their agency and status through unilateral or multilateral measures that materially change conditions in active conflict zones.

Supporting the functions of diplomacy and state -like involvement in armed conflicts is a third function: ownership and operation of cyberspace and associated capacity. Cyberspace – the fifth area of ​​power projection – is distinct compared to the other four, which is owned and/or shared by states through treaties and principles of sovereignty. Cyberspace is at the same time a physical infrastructure as well as an information ecosystem. The two are unclearly linked.

Unlike the corridors and meeting rooms in the UN – where states are the operators – in Cyberspace, own the private sector plan, largely set the game’s rules and have the best players.

As a result, Big Tech has a privileged position in one of the most consequently arenas: Cyberspace. However, Big Tech’s influence also reveals a basic tension. While these companies have become de facto players in the international system, they are free from many of the responsible systems that limit state actors. However, this is not a lawless, zero summary “wild west”. Big Tech is in terms of shareholders’ expectations, national regulations and international standards. Nevertheless, these mechanisms, based on a concern for consumers and principals, are not replacement for broader responsibility towards citizens and global society. The question is not necessarily Big Tech’s influence, but the inability of existing international frameworks to adapt to its emergence as a dominant actor in Cyberspace and an almost peer on world issues.

Don’t hate the player, change the game

Adapting to Big Tech’s growing global role is not just about blaming companies for taking the initiative. It is also about reforming structures and processes for introducing liability. So far, similar attempt In multilateral forums to integrate the private sector it has had limited success. When the international system expects the increase in major technical players, three intuitive paths are shown.

First, large technology companies can formally be granted membership in important international organizations – recognize multistakeholders status quo. This may range from observer status at the UN to increased participation rights in specialized governance forums such as International Telecommunications Union. For example, large technology companies may have a vote in establishing international standards or choosing leadership and participating in World radio communication conferences. Inclusion would bring companies into existing frameworks and create opportunities to maintain liability among peers through existing mechanisms. Without a doubt controversial, this approach can normalize and better define the assignment for their contribution to a control -based system.

Secondly, countries and international organizations can improve international treaties and national legislation to better control the influence of the private sector. Multilateral agreements, are similar to the regulatory weapons control or nuclear spread – which each already has some Monitoring of Private Sector – Could put controls at Big Tech’s operations in critical areas such as global digital infrastructure. At the same time, national governments can update legislation and regulations to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement towards the company’s exaggerated. The European Union is basically taking this strategy under the direction of Digital Markets Act and Cyber ​​Resilience ActAlthough these goals are not always expressed. Unfortunately, these initiatives also criticized As a smooth attempt to conduct industrial politics along geopolitical fault lines and makeup for European regulation that suffocates the growth of the technology sector.

Third, companies can adopt larger companies’ openness. Technical companies can apply standards such as environmental, social and governance Statements that are adapted to their international activities. These “international reports of commitment, compliance and governance” would constitute a tailor -made opportunity for companies to describe their global attitude. Such reports can themselves assess a company’s operations during the previous year and talk about their plans-future strategy, partnerships and upcoming participation in international processes. These information would provide additional sources of qualitative and quantitative tasks – similar governments that indicate strategies or political documents. In turn, these tasks can strengthen civil society, companies’ employees and shareholders, as well as governments to keep these companies responsible for their actions on the world scene.

None of these proposals will resolve the total balance in the liability deficit, and in all likelihood the status quo will continue. Even the countries that acknowledge that measures should be taken to remedy the power and liability has ultimately limited bandwidth – in the middle of a “bounce up” trade war Between the US and China – to devote resources to combining companies’ responsibility. Countries and trading blocks can also use a liability agenda as coverage to promote national or regional interests and masters to undermine the rival powers.

In addition, historical precedent-such as efforts to engage major techniques in the UN and organization for security and cooperation in Europe against the Terrorism Forum-that expectations should be handled. International institutions may be notoriously slow to adapt, while Big Tech is moving Fast – and often breaks things. We hope that this reflection offers a starting point to consider liability for Big Tech’s practice of international influence.

In balance, it is neither feasible nor desirable to show Big Tech a “red card.” The transformative effect of technology on power dynamics in international society is undeniable and will only intensify. The challenge lies in ensuring that Big Tech’s enormous influence is in line with the rules of the game. It should be responsible – not just to shareholders or national regulatory authorities but for the public. Through our ongoing research With King’s College London and the University of Bath, we strive to drive the conversation forward and highlight the critical intersections between technology, governance and state power.

Joseph Jarnecki is a researcher for cyber and technology at the Royal United Services Institute and a European cyber security scholarship 2024-2025 on virtual routes.

Gareth Mott is a researcher for cyber and technology at the Royal United Services Institute.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons