Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for freeThe stories that matter on money and politics in the race for the White HouseThe writer is international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and special adviser to the European CommissionEarlier this month, EU commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Elon Musk, reminding the X CEO of his obligations to moderate content ahead of an online discussion with Donald Trump. Musk responded with a meme that included the F-word. The response was as juvenile as it was telling of Musk’s superiority complex.Tech executives have increasingly resorted to threatening officials and governments over democratically legitimate proposals that don’t suit their business models. Political leaders should push back harder against threats to withhold investments or pull out of markets. Their own independence and authority is at stake. Attempts to pile on pressure range in both maturity and magnitude. Thousands of Musk’s Starlink mobile internet systems are in Ukraine, many used by the military. In 2022, Musk threatened to stop paying for terminals he had donated following an online fight with a Ukrainian diplomat. He later announced that he had changed his mind.Meta and Google both pressured the Australian government over a media law designed to make them pay for news content. Google threatened to cut off its search engine but opted to strike deals with media companies instead. Meta has closed its news service. Last year, Sam Altman said EU efforts to regulate artificial intelligence might lead OpenAI to cease operations in Europe. EU regulators did not blink and OpenAI stayed, now saying it is committed to respecting the law.Big tech companies can exploit their enormous user bases to apply pressure. A small company has far less to leverage. These threats are not typical lobbying behaviour. They could have a real impact on the public interest. Removing access to news sources deprives the public of vital information, and cutting off internet access in a conflict zone puts people at risk. In the US, Kamala Harris, barely nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee, has immediately faced her own requests from wealthy tech donors. Some Silicon Valley billionaires are hoping Harris will replace Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan. The FTC, responsible for antitrust rules, has engaged in high-profile battles with tech giants. Other executives seem to be waiting to see if she will advance their policy agenda before backing her.Some in the industry advocate for muscles to be flexed in public rather than in private. But threats are wrong whether they are issued behind closed doors or in broad daylight. Democratic leaders and all citizens should oppose them all, no matter the messenger, no matter the issue. When UK regulators blocked Microsoft’s proposed merger with gaming giant Activision, the company’s president Brad Smith said, apparently hoping to insult London: “Brussels is a place where one can sit down and actually have a conversation with the regulators who are accountable to the elected leaders.” We must hope that these “conversations” are not conducted with a knife on the table.The fact that tech companies resort to bullying methods is yet another sign of their outsize power. Some corporate leaders have become so powerful that they believe they can bend democratic processes — or avoid them all together. Instead of relenting, as political leaders too often do, companies should pay a price for aggression and may ultimately lose out on contracts or other lucrative access to governments (still the largest spenders on IT). Threats should never be rewarded. Harris has the opportunity to decisively reject Big Tech and Big VC’s posturing and use that position to her campaign’s advantage. It would mark her out as different to her opponent. Donald Trump is eager to court Silicon Valley’s support. His candidate vice-president, JD Vance, has close ties to Peter Thiel and enjoys support from other tech power brokers.Earlier this year, Trump radically changed his position on a US TikTok ban after meeting TikTok investor and political donor Jeff Yass, although Trump said he did not discuss the company with Yass.Harris should draw a line in the sand and defend democratic primacy in governing tech. Her response to campaign financiers will set the tone for tech policy during her presidency later. She must make clear who the real executive is right now, not after November.Whether through a childish meme or via apparently respectful communication, over the internet or in a closed-door meeting, threats by powerful executives should not be accepted. The bullies should not be allowed to win.
