Big Tech and Sphere Transgression

The philosophical perspective, brought forward by Tamar Sharon, argued in favour of a methodological sensitivity to ‘sphere transgression’: specifically strengths in the private sector dominated ‘digital sphere’ transgressing power over to the political sphere. Sharon argues digitisation has made ‘digital sphere transgression’ into a profitable, sometimes privacy preserving, and often socially accepted private sector activity. Think Google/Apple Covid-tracing app API, praised for its privacy preserving standards.

At first it seems like a positive development by the tech private sector, but Sharon argues this results in influencing research agendas, creating dependencies on big tech for provision of public goods, and maintaining their logic of (capital) accumulation. Sharon thinks ‘sphere transgression’ must be what we look out for when evaluating the actions of big tech. Whilst spheres are indeed an abstract and somewhat heuristic concept, as she describes it, identifying such transgressions should at least act as a “red flag” worthy of deeper investigation. The frame of reference should be sphere transgression, not simply privacy and market commodification.

The Role of Researchers in Law and Big Tech

The regulatory perspective was presented by Natali Helberger, and it concerned developments in the EU’s Digital Service Act (DSA). The act aims to establish internet rules to maintain a safe digital space. The topic in question was whether large online platform providers have the skills, time and expertise to themselves analyse and assess the systemic risks they potentially create.

Conflicts of interest, limited funding, and monitoring performance are some of the risks with internal assessment highlighted by Helberger. The other option she contended is for third party researchers to conduct the monitoring. For this they require access to data, and article 34 grants them nothing more than access to “data” to identify risk, but is this enough? “Do we [researchers] just need air and data?”

While researchers are important for the process, Helberger explains the process need to be properly delineated for what researchers can do, with more attention on the conditions that need to be fulfilled. In that way their role can be played without dangers of influencing research agendas, making risk analysis institutionally unattractive or unattainable for researchers and emphasising the importance of academic freedom and independence.  

The panel and audience was then split up into groups, allowing the attendees to ask further questions and engage in a more intimate discussion amongst themselves.

For more information on future events please visit the PEPT website. If you enjoyed this event at the Institute for Advanced Study, or this summary, please follow us on Twitter to stay up to date with all future events, or visit our Events web page.