Govern or Be Governed: Can Anyone Regulate Big Tech?

I’m in Montreal today and tomorrow at a conference titled Attention: Govern or be Governed. I’m speaking later today, along with friends Ivan Sigal and Mark Surman, about the future of technologies for democracy. It’s quite the event: my friend Taylor Owen from McGill has brought together a mix of policymakers (particularly European and Canadian), activists and technologists to talk about this very weird moment in technology and politics.

Taylor warns that there’s an incredible incentive at the moment to lock in power, both of corporations and states. That moment is aggravated by the particular moment of US state power – we’ve never seen a moment where US state power is exerting extreme trade and diplomatic power to protect tech industries and their overreach. The goal is to have a global conversation in Canada, a place that feels like it’s on the front lines of these battles. Canada is facing extreme pressure from the US, including pressure to abandon the digital services tax, and is feeling reluctance to pursue new regulations at a moment where the sovereignty of the nation is at risk. So this becomes an interesting place to reimagine how these technologies can and should be governed.

The opening speaker is EU commissioner Michael McGrath. He’s the Irish Commissioner responsible for democracy, justice, the rule of law and consumer protection, joining the EU Commission after 25 years in Irish politics.

He starts his remarks off with a bang: “Algorithms fuel apathy, public discourse is manipulated, and disinformation spreads like wildfire.” His theory is that technology amplifies power, which means a tool like radio – and by extension, the internet – can be a tool for repression or for liberation. “We do not have a technology problem… Instead, we have a governance problem.” Societies must decide whether they want to govern technology, or be governed by it.

His closing reminder: freedom is not the absence of rules. Rules enable freedom, if they are transparent and accountable.

Key to this is accountability. When citizens report scams, when journalists expose ill effects, when anyone alters an algorithm to their benefit, they are holding tech accountable. But we’re seeing power exert influence through technology, with Russian disinformation actors using social media and AI to manipulate public opinion. This is especially worrisome to the EU, an organization founded in the wake of WWII, an assault on democracy by autocracy.

McGrath outlines three pillars of the EU approach to tech regulation. It’s a risk-based approach, which tries to identify systemic risks and shift the burden of proof to the companies. The DSA and AI Act means “the companies that design these online spaces must also design the safeguards we rely on.” It’s also a user-centric approach, which gives users the ability to appeal content takedowns. While it’s characterized as censorship legislation, he asserts that it’s the opposite – it’s the best regime we’ve seen for asserting the right to speak online. Finally, it seeks transparency, ensuring that media remains independent and people understand who’s paying for the content they see.

In a rare moment of equivocation, McGrath notes that Australia has restricted social media to people 16 and under – he notes it’s a complex issue, that the European Commission is meeting with experts and keeping the rights of children in mind as it considers restrictions.

McGrath introduces the “European Democracy Shield”, an EC effort to protect and invest in EU democracies and media. It’s necessary, he says, for three reasons:

– The transformation of the public sphere, with the concentration of power in large media companies
– The rise of authoritarian actors undermining rights and freedoms, including election interference. He cites Moldova’s experience with election interference as an example of these battles.
– A societal transformation in which young people are increasingly unenchanted with democratic values, sometimes embracing extreme nationalism.

To protect European freedom, which he argues is well-understood through high rankings on metrics like press freedom, we need a shield. “Democracy itself is the shield. We do not protect democracy for reasons of abstract ideals – we protect democracy because it protects us.”

The shield seeks to reinforce the integrity of the information space, to ensure elections are free from interference, and to create democratic resilience, counterattacking against disinformation, and seeking to strengthen public trust in democracy.

McGrath is followed by a panel of individuals who work day to day on the information ecosystem. Sasha Havlicek of the Institute for Strategic Dialog notes that social media platforms systemically amplify antidemocratic speech, and have started blocking access to the information we need to study these effects. While we’ve made progress on speak-protective ruls, Havilchek argues, the solution is transparency. If you believe social media is biased one way or another, it is in your interest to ensure that there is data that allows us to investigate these claims. We need more legislation like DSA 40, and we need processes that allow people to appeal suspensions and restrictions on their speech.

European MP Alexandra Geese notes that the Digital Services Act is an impressive piece of legislation, but is not being enforced sufficiently. There is an article in the DSA about systemic risk to minors – why aren’t we enforcing that provision, and instead trying to pass more legislation around minors specifically? This is especially true, she argues, regarding systemic risks to democracy. It’s harder than ever to find content that is not extreme or antidemocratic. What’s the agenda-setting that’s coming about from algorithms that appear to be amplifying extreme political content?

Why isn’t the EC enforcing the DSA? In part, it’s because JD Vance has threatened to pull out of NATO if the DSA has real consequences for US tech companies.

Sir Jeremy Wright, former UK Secretary of State for Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport, offers and apology for the ways in which legislation falls short of goals: we never get entirely what we want, due to the compromises of the legislative process. But we appear to be passing “framework legislation”, and leaving most of the work to the regulators. Right now, the Trump administration threats are having a great deal of impact on what regulators do. “But we still do have power to act,” though more progress is possible. As we move forward the goal needs to be passing legislation that is actually implementable.

The post Govern or Be Governed: Can Anyone Regulate Big Tech? appeared first on Ethan Zuckerman.

Source: https://ethanzuckerman.com/2025/10/23/govern-or-be-governed-can-anyone-regulate-big-tech/