(RoyalPatriot.com )- In a New York Times op-ed from 2018, Tim Wu, who now serves as an adviser on tech competition in the Biden administration, claimed that Facebook and other tech giants have long argued that government regulation of Big Tech would hand the future to China. They argue that because China stands behind its tech firms and knows competition is global, China will win.
It was Wu’s contention that Facebook and the rest of Big Tech are trying to justify their monopolies by attempting to reframe the narrative as China versus the United States. Wu conceded that it is true that eight of the world’s twenty largest tech firms are Chinese which does suggest a degree of global dominance. But at the same time, Wu explains, basic economics suggests that fierce competition at home results in stronger industries overall.
Wu argued in 2018 that by giving Big Tech a pass when it comes to antitrust enforcement and allowing them to dominate the markets, America would lose its ability to expand innovation and competition.
In an article at Barrons last week, authors Anthea Roberts and Nicolas Lamp cite Wu’s 2018 editorial to promote their upcoming book on Globalization. In their book, they argue that both those who oppose globalization and those who support it “swap narratives” in the same way Facebook and Big Tech do when defending their monopolies.
The long and short of their piece is that both sides tend to use “us” versus “them” narratives in defending their side of the debate. And it is happening in the debate about globalization “at a dizzying pace.”
In relation to globalization, the authors contend that the “us” versus “them” argument among those opposed to globalization often resorts to appeals of nationalism.
Ultimately, the authors believe the framing of arguments matter — whether it is done cynically “or in good faith.” They believe that the first step in “problem-solving” is “problem framing.” And by switching narratives, both sides are trying to reframe the problem to fit their specific solutions.
Honestly, the entire article is a rather dry and turgid piece that routinely gets into the weeds, which doesn’t bode well for the readability of the authors’ book.