America’s big tech CEOs are having to become politicians as much as businesspeople as their size and influence invites more scrutiny. Facebook’s reputation and that of social media in general have tanked as privacy scandals and profits have piled up. Yet this hasn’t stopped Mark Zuckerberg taking on the global financial system with a new cryptocurrency, Libra.
Google has endured walkouts by employees over its handling of sexual harassment claims and its dealings with the Chinese government and the Pentagon. Last week, it was reported that US officials want to block an undersea cable linking Los Angeles and Hong Kong, backed by Google, Facebook and a Chinese partner, due to national security issues. In February, Amazon was forced to abandon plans to build a headquarters in New York after furious local opposition to the tax breaks it had secured. And recent polls have shown that a large majority of US adults believe social networks are hurting the young and having a negative effect on social values.
One company which has dealt adroitly with the political and social consequences of its size has been Apple. Last week, Tim Cook showed his deft political skills when he announced that the tech giant would be donating an unspecified amount to help restore the Amazon rainforest, swathes of which are on fire.
“It’s devastating to see the fires and destruction ravaging the Amazon rainforest, one of the world’s most important ecosystems,” Cook said in a tweet. “Apple will be donating to help preserve its biodiversity and restore the Amazon’s indispensable forest across Latin America.”
He made the announcement just as Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, was flip-flopping over an offer from the G7 leaders meeting in Biarritz to help fight the fires. Bolsonaro initially saw the G7 as bossy environmental meddlers before he backtracked. Cook and Apple, for whom Brazil is a significant market, appeared as friends arriving with their bucket brigade.
Cook’s intervention came soon after Google suffered blowback for hosting dozens of business, political and cultural leaders at their annual retreat in Sicily. A barefoot Prince Harry spoke to an audience including Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, about the “terrifying” effects of climate change. Meanwhile, the guests were flying in and out on gas-guzzling private jets.
Environment and climate change have become the top political issues for young voters. Contenders in the US Democratic primary have been scrambling to find ways to address them, and even Donald Trump tried portraying himself as an environmental champion at the G7 summit in Biarritz.
But Apple, one of the world’s largest corporations — whose founder Steve Jobs considered himself the heir to the Sixties counterculture — speaks with a special heft. Cook’s actions spoke to the zeitgeist and the concerns of Apple’s consumers.
When Cook succeeded Jobs, the consensus was that he would lead Apple competently but not much more. Instead, he has overseen years of rapid growth and proved an adroit politician during difficult times. President Trump’s trade war with China threatened initially to blow a hole in Apple’s business. Not only does Apple manufacture many of its products in China but increasingly it sells them there too. Cook had to work furiously behind the scenes to ensure exemptions so that Apple could continue to operate. He has also pandered to Trump’s political interests. Apple benefited enormously from Trump’s decision to allow US companies to bring back cash from overseas without having to pay a tax penalty. To show his gratitude, Cook backed Trump’s ambitions to reboot US manufacturing by announcing Apple would invest $5 billion in US manufacturing operations.
The company has also been ahead of its peers in addressing privacy and security concerns, and fears among parents that their children are spending too much time on screens. In 2015, long before the privacy scandals that engulfed Facebook, Cook said: “I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information.”
Apple makes its money by selling hardware and apps, not free software and advertising. It does not peddle in personal data the way Google and Facebook do. But Cook’s expression of concern put him on what turned out to be the right side of the privacy debate much earlier than his rivals.
Similarly, when Apple was criticised by some of its biggest investors for making users overdependent on technology, the company responded smartly by releasing new features to allow parents greater control over children’s smartphone use. Google soon followed suit.
There are always those wanting Apple to do more, to use its cash and technological muscle to challenge Google and Facebook in their core businesses. Why not build and sell access to an ad-free social network? Or a smut-free YouTube? When Jobs was alive he was criticised for keeping such strict control over the contents of Apple’s App Store. He seemed fussy and prudish at the time but it turns out he might have been right and Cook has inherited many of Jobs’s concerns.
Of all the big tech CEOs, he seems to understand best that as technology becomes ever more personal, the companies with access to our information are going to be held to an ever higher standard.
Facebook’s problems, notably the plundering of private data for political use during the 2016 US presidential elections and the influence of “fake news”, prompted Zuckerberg to hire former deputy prime minister Sir Nick Clegg to oversee his global public affairs and communications team. While the company is more profitable than ever, the suspicions it now engenders among users and regulators may limit the scope of its activities in the future. It has already faced stiff criticism and ridicule for its cryptocurrency plans.
Google has suffered from greater scrutiny by its own staff. Last November, about 20,000 employees and contractors in 50 cities walked out of work in protest at the company’s culture. And it appeared oblivious to the #MeToo moment when it paid $90 million in severance to Andy Rubin, who created the company’s Android phone, after he was accused of sexual harassment.
Amazon, meanwhile, is learning to cope with the ascent of its founder, Jeff Bezos, to the position of richest man in the world, now far ahead of Bill Gates. His philanthropy is still underdeveloped compared to his business. Last year he pledged $2 billion to his Bezos Day One Fund, to support homeless families and the building of Montessori-style pre-schools. Gates, by comparison, the role model for all tech philanthropists, has given more than $45 billion to charity since 1994. His foundation frequently gives away more in a year than the annual budget of the World Health Organization, which has 194 member states.
Bezos is still finding his way. Last year he was criticised for remarks that suggested a disdain for government. He told an audience in Washington DC: “If you have a mission you can do it with government, you can do it with non-profit or for-profit. If you can figure out how to do it with for-profit that has a lot of advantages: it’s self-sustaining.” In Seattle and San Francisco, two tech hubs where Amazon has a strong presence, homelessness has grown alongside the wealth from the tech industry. Critics of Bezos have said that here is a problem begging for him to prove his theory. So far, he hasn’t.
