The Rundown
Technology news, society, and culture
The United States government's next primary target: the gaming industry.
- Tencent has made significant investments there over the past decade, including Riot Games (League of Legends) and Epic Games (Fortnite).
- These are massive stakes — Tencent effectively owns Riot, and 40% of Epic.
- Activision Blizzard has taken the most heat for its links to date, despite that stake only coming to 4.9%.
- Hundreds of other gaming industry investments are part of that portfolio.
The open web has a problem. We've seen liberal democratic values themselves used as an attack vector by authoritarian rivals before, and it's one of the most evident weaknesses of our society's model in the connected age. And as the current versions of our culture and internet tend to do, we all feel under pressure to pick up our appropriately axial policies like wooden swords and fight with them — Chinese ownership, in or out, left or right? But it's not that simple.
I'm not a China expert, and I defer to Ben Thompson for background and strategic analysis. He explains more articulately in Exponent #187 that Chinese platforms don't approach our yard of the web until they emerge — the victorious ones, that is — from a high-stakes cage battle to the death. It's a fight for the engagement of China's 1 billion users, a market that's entirely mobile-first and has come to expect algorithmic engagement techniques that are nigh on unfailing. The Chinese tech market is an incubator for ruthless Western tech company killers. If you've seen TikTok's algorithm at work, you know that Facebook can't touch it, Twitter hasn't got a hope, and even YouTube's famous recommendation engine looks crude in comparison.
When companies like ByteDance unleash apps like TikTok in the West, our tech monopolies are akin to a rag-tag band of knife-wielding street thugs standing in the middle of the Somme. We already have our laundry list of issues with these companies, and we're rightfully keeping them preoccupied with attempts to begin a phase of accountability at home.
But even if we weren't, they'd be unprepared. There's no access given to the Chinese market in exchange for our openness, not without entering into an equally owned joint venture with one of the local entities. The only path to a level playing field virtually demands forfeit, whether in spirit or source code access.
Our best shot at a good outcome isn't a naive and unnuanced approach in which we ignore the problem in the name of said values. As Thompson says, China splinted the internet long ago. That ship has sailed. What remains to be seen is how motivated we are to ensure an open future for the rest of it, one that'll be a model of values-based custodianship. One that'll still be there for the Chinese people to join if they make their way to a more individualistic form of governance. Otherwise, we'll end up watching an ambitious outside entity snap up the commercial web's user-facing layer, consolidate power, and erode that openness to an extent we've not yet seen from our comparably cuddly industry. But we can solve this without morally compromising ourselves in a way that ultimately unravels the whole thing.
We need a principle of reciprocity — one where we mutually require nation-states that play on the open web's economic field to adopt (or at least abide by) those values and offer market openness to all other participants.
Whether that demands openness of other varieties — of speech, for example — is another discussion. The core of the matter here is that if you want to make money from our users, we've got to be able to compete in your country's digital markets and make money from your users, without lopsided barriers to entry.
In theory, this could be done using economic and diplomatic levers alone, without introducing new shiny toys for prospective fascists into the underlying infrastructure and creating new risks to internet freedom. It's most likely that the end result is the same, because China is not about to open its market. But the immediate outcome is only part of the story. The means and methods getting there are momentously consequential.
So what's the big issue here?
First, it's all too clear that the Western contingent, as represented by Trump, has no sincere overarching philosophy that defines the parameters of failure and success. In practice, this is a political exercise by a man whose obsessive self-interest defines every action he takes. As with most Trumpian blusters, the stakes looked high at the outset. By the end, we're looking at some weak, convoluted arrangement that doesn't change the underlying dynamic of the game in the real world. Further, the non-solution directly erodes web freedom by normalizing case-by-case intervention in the internet's shape, as opposed to a system that provides rules-based certainty such as a clearly-defined understanding of valid reciprocity. Perhaps more dangerously, it closes the issue while it remains unsolved. And even when the stakes looked consequential, Trump pitched the danger of TikTok's ownership as a security concern, not a defense of the spirit of the open web. That's not a position that has ever even crossed 45's mind. That Trump might find an open internet threatening himself seems congruent enough.
This is a spectacle of strength that disguises another shakedown deal engineered by a reality star. It makes a joke of the real issues and makes any solution with genuine fairness and teeth less likely ever to eventuate. The proposed resolution has even put the EFF in the position of indirectly defending an entity intertwined with one of Earth's most censorious surveillance regimes.
So far, we've just wasted time better spent differently, and with just as many news cycles as the Apple vs. Epic pay-per-view down the hatch. Suppose the gaming inquisition unfolds as the social one has. The proposed eviction of problematic foreign ownership results in mildly diluted holdings and Trump gets to lob a few more cloud contracts at political supporters. It will further entrench the power dynamic by informal precedent. Meanwhile, users have no fresh certainty about the web's future — just the wreckage of more embittered division over how to handle things in this vacuum of leadership.
♾️
An A-list of Apple's App Store opponents over the past few years have assembled a justice league of sorts against anti-competitive App Store policies, The Coalition for App Fairness.
The roster includes such iconic antiheroes of this soap opera as Epic Games and Spotify, and voices that lend a more reasoned air — like Basecamp and ProtonMail. I don't see Automattic on the list, but I hope that changes.
We'll return to iOS 14 widgets later on. The classic annual reviews from MacStories and TechCrunch don't appear to have landed yet — though stories on the reason for their absence abound. The Verge has done a serviceable overview if you need a refresher on the new features.
♾️