No smoking without fire

Special Report

There are deep comparisons with the downfall of the tobacco industry and the behaviour of the tech industry. Facebook and Apple could go the same way as Marlboro and Phillip Morris.

 

Big Tobacco

It was official. On 11th January 1964, a US Government commission reported that smoking tobacco damaged our health. Its shock findings revealed that cigarettes increased chances of early mortality by 70% and lung cancer by tenfold.

There had been concerns about smoking for years, but in 1958 less than half of Americans believed it caused cancer. This ignorance was due to intensive lobbying and pressuring of Congress by tobacco conglomerates (also known as ‘Big Tobacco’).

For years their finances had successfully kept a lid on any reports or legislation that could harm their money-making. 

This was an era where 6 year-olds were able to recognise Camel Joe (a cigarette mascot) and Mickey Mouse equally and that same brand was promoted by doctors as their 'preferred choice'.

But in 1965, warning labels were introduced on cigarette packets, and by 1970, TV and radio adverts were banned. It took until 1998 for smoking to be culled on all US plane flights, but at least Camel Joe had been pulled from advertising. 

That same year, Big Tobacco had to pay a $206bn 'master settlement' with 46 US states, all suing for its fraudulent behaviour. 

Most of Big Tobacco has either left the market or is desperately consolidating. Unless their gamble with e-cigarrettes pays off, they'll soon be a shadow of their former self.

So?

You may then ask, how does the behavior of the tech companies fit into this?

The triggers of the downfall of Big Tobacco are being repeated before us with Big Tech: i.e. concerns about health, a change in public attitudes, and a dollop of government intervention (remember those three).

They themselves are not too different:

1. There is/was a boom in usage of their products, and the world's dependence on them increased
2. The dominance and brand heft of the market leaders is/was unparalleled and unforeseen
3. Their drive to sell is/was superior
4.  to all else, be it through subverting information or merciless advertising campaigns

A satire of the 'Big Five':
Google/Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook

But what does the downfall actually look like?

Step 1: Health

Yeah...we've all done it

Two major investors in Apple recently sent an open letter to the firm, worried about the increasing addiction of young people to their phones. 

They described a survey where '75% [of 2,300 teachers] say students' ability to focus on educational tasks has decreased', and they called on Apple to 'protect the next generation of leaders, innovators and customers'.

It's well-understood that addiction to screen and mobile phones hurts our education and (probably) our social lives. Intense use of devices damages the eyes (my head's hurting from intense blogging right now) and keeps us awake at night.
And we barely know of the long-term impacts, because smartphones haven't even been around for 10 years.


Heavy declines in the number of under 25s using Facebook

But this challenge would be quickly forgotten if it were not for another interesting piece of news: the number of users of Facebook dropped by 1 million users.

Step 2: The Public

In North America, Facebook's biggest audience, the decline is equivalent to 50 million hours lost. That means the world is spending 15% less time on the site.

The planet's biggest social media network may be suffering due to allegations that the Russians used it to manipulate the 2016 US election result, or because social media is diluting.

Where under-25s prefer Snapchat and Instagram, businesses use Linkedin and my Grandma Whatsapp. Companies are can't hold a monopoly or dominate the market - humans are bored of Facebook and Twitter.

These are baby steps: there are still vast markets in Asia and Africa available, and any public mistrust of tech is not yet strong enough to have a big impact.

However the idea that social media companies are not indomitable (or innocent) has been planted, and may build up over time.

Step 3: The Government

We've seen less of this stage than of the other two, but governments on both sides of the Atlantic are doing more and more to curb or tame the raging tech titans. 

Facebook, Twitter and Google suffered bruising hearings at the US Senate as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia and the US election, and that's surely not the last time those two affairs have been mentioned in the same sentence.

(L to R) Reps of Facebook, Twitter and Google at the hearing

Likewise, Google, the king of the Internet, has been hit hard by an EU ruling revealing it manipulated search results to favour its own shopping subsidiaries over third parties.

Margrethe Vestager, the commissioner who delivered the ruling, said that 'you [tech companies] have a special responsibility and you cannot misuse your powers in your own market or any other market'. The $2.7 billion fine has not gone down easily, and further investigations into their tax arrangements will surely be rattling them.

Also, Theresa May warned last year that the battle against IS is moving from the “battlefield to the internet”, and she's right.

Big Tech has been accused (correctly) of not doing enough to combat online radicalisation and governments will soon take measures into their own hands, further reducing the power of the giants.

Big Failure

Surely the parallels are clear: Big Tech is facing the same problems as Big Tobacco except in a much smaller time frame. Being under pressure from the public and the West's governments because of health concerns has resulted in uncertainty and (possibly) falling user numbers.

The irony is of course, that in using the services that Big Tech has given us, we have a voice with which to push back.

Why is politics today so different to years ago?

The political mixture of 2017 is unlike any before; what has brought this change on?

The world is always changing and reforming, as humanity tries new things and technology advances. 
But recently, this change has been focused on politics. 20 years ago, the idea of 'President' Trump would have been laughable; the Labour Party leader might not have survived this long, and the General Election results were far more predictable (10)
What has brought about this unreliability and development in the political world?

Google+, Facebook, Twitter, 
Instagram, Tumblr, and Whatsapp are the biggest social media sites in the Western World (3); almost 2.4 billion people are expected to use them in 2017 - mostly in democratic nations (except for China, which has its own social networking systems). 

This massive network of people allows ideas, opinions, facts, lies, and stories to be shared as quick as a mouse-click. Not even twenty years ago, politicians' main worry were the newspapers and TV News. They were slower and more manageable, which could be good, or bad.

Good:

• There was time for celebrities/authority figures/leaders to react to problems and leaks, because it would be hours, or even days, before news got out
• Information was generally more trustworthy, as the sources were easier to monitor and there was more time to verify facts

Bad:

• The news sources were controlled by a few select people (5) who could turn (almost) the entire industry against the Government, or the Opposition, or whoever they didn't like
• Governing bodies were more distant and harder to reach; Twitter now allows us to abuse them in a short sentence

But the rapid onset of the internet caught everyone - especially the politicians - by surprise, and over 2007 (seen as the dawn of social media) a new system of sharing information developed. For several years Governments and political groups fell behind as social media permanently transformed how news is reported, and how we view it. These websites means that organisations such as the BBC can display breaking news instantly (11), being shared and re-shared by hundreds of people a minute, perhaps millions over a day. 

This can be great news! Bad Government policies that might have gone unnoticed - such as the Tax Credits cuts in 2015 - can be withdrawn after intense social media pressure (6). 

George Osborne (who introduced the cuts) in 2015

This makes politicians far more vulnerable. This could lead to a greater need by governments to appeal to the people, possibly changing how they do things for the better. It will also encourage more of us - especially youth - to take an interest in politics, which might gradually form a more diverse government, fresher and better connected, with real passion and ideas.

It can be bad news though. We spend a huge amount of time on social media (7), which means that we're still easily influenced by it; 'it's' just online instead. There's a strong chance that Russia meddled in the US elections by having certain people on social media spread false stories about Clinton (8). The stories then spread extremely quickly, and probably changed enough minds to impact the vote. 

As Winston Churchill said: 'A lie can go halfway round the world while the truth is putting its shoes on'. Social media is the worst of this phrase, with exciting legend taking first place to boring truth. 

Trump's controversial comments during campaigning - whilst often immoral - got constant coverage online, and meant that people kept seeing him far more than Clinton, even in memes (above). This free awareness almost certainly encouraged enough people to cast their ballot for him, having the (potentially worrying) effect of making him President.

The connectivity of social media means that we have far more freedom and power, but we're also more visible. We can challenge governments, but then be targeted by them. Facebook has come under a lot of flak recently; they can monitor your political beliefs, and then sell this information to whomever wants it (9). The resulting adverts and posts specifically geared towards us could convince people to support ideas that they may never have held, and thus change the way we vote, and who you are.


Social media has given us the power to change politics beyond reckoning, but we must be careful - politics is beginning to fight back.

Thank you for reading! I wasn't able to cover things like Corbyn, the EU referendum, and the General Elections, but I'm more than happy to talk about them or answer questions in the comments. Do you disagree with what I've said? Let me know and we can discuss! 

Theo