argument top image

Should we break up the Big Tech companies?
Back to question

Big Tech companies can't be trusted with people's data

Many incidents of improper data use, security breaches, and disregard for privacy prove that Big Tech has too much power over data.
< (2 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

The nature of the services provided by the Big Tech companies mean that these companies possess and track vast amounts of their users' private personal data. Advertising is a multi-billion dollar revenue generator for the Big Tech companies, and targeting advertisements based on user data is a critical part of the business model of Big Tech companies including Amazon, Facebook, and Google. The absence of viable alternative options to the platforms provided by Big Tech means that these companies have little incentive to take privacy seriously, despite ongoing backlash against their practices. The scale of Big Tech's dominance also affords these companies undue influence over what information people see, what products people buy, and what choices people make. Facebook received widespread condemnation following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which they allowed the external firm to data-mine their users and sell that data to clients including the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Controversies like the Cambridge Analytica incident have prompted public outcry and calls for increased regulation of the data use practices and privacy policies of Big Tech. Breaking up the Big Tech companies would facilitate effective oversight and prevent any single company from controlling so much private data that they are able to exert an unchecked influence on public discourse and democratic processes.

Counter arguments


[P1] Big tech companies unethically track and utilise huge amounts of their users' data. [P2] We should break up Big Tech companies to ensure they are not able to control vast amounts of data.

Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Jul 2020 at 17:42 UTC

Explore related arguments