Big Tech has mastered the art of manipulation and exploitation all under the shiny banner of innovation. Google and Facebook want you to believe they're leading us into brighter, tech-driven future. But the reality is far grimmer. These giants aren't the heroes of the tech world. They're the villains. They use our data to fuel their empires while locking out competition and trapping us in digital echo chambers.

We've normalized this data theft and these malpractices. Our complacency has paved the way for these companies to exploit us further. Sure advancements in AI and technology are credited to compute and algorithms, but at core it's our data that drives these innovations. We are the unwitting co-contributors to their success. Yet we are the ones who pay the price.

It's time to pull back the curtain on Big Tech. Their dominance is not a testament to superior innovation. It is a testament to their ability to lie manipulate and exploit. We must recognize this truth and demand better. It’s our data, our privacy. Our digital future is at stake.

LinkedIn Sales Navigator: A premium disaster

You think paying for LinkedIn Sales Navigator at hefty INR 6000 per month should give you seamless. Premium service right? Wrong. LinkedIn’s disjointed, incomplete service is a classic example of how Big Tech fails its users.

First off LinkedIn Sales Navigator data is not linked with your LinkedIn profile data. This means two sets of information are treated like they’re from different planets. You’re paying for a service. It doesn’t integrate with core LinkedIn experience. How does that make any sense? You’re left juggling between two different data sets. This is as inefficient as it gets.

But wait. It gets worse. If you ever cancel your Sales Navigator subscription and decide to return later guess what happens? All your messages and conversations in Sales Navigator are deleted. That’s right. Years of valuable business communication vanish in an instant. It’s ruthless system that disregards your data retention needs. They don't even provide a warning that your data will disappear.

And let’s talk about data portability. Even after coughing up INR 6000 per month. There’s no way to export your search data. You’re stuck within LinkedIn’s walled garden. With no means to take your valuable business intelligence elsewhere. This isn’t a small oversight. It’s deliberate move to keep you tethered to their platform unable to leverage your own data in a way that suits your business needs.

And what does this mean?

1. Users pay premium for disjointed incomplete service. You’re essentially paying for service that doesn’t fully integrate with LinkedIn’s core functionalities. This makes it a fragmented and inefficient tool.

   
   

2. If you pause your subscription, you lose all your conversations. All the critical business negotiations and connections are wiped out. This causes significant disruption and loss.

   
   

3. The inability to export your data means you have no control over your own information. You’re stuck using LinkedIn’s platform on their terms without any flexibility.

YouTube: The Illusion of Free Platform

YouTube is hailed as the largest video distribution platform in world. The reality is far from perfect. It’s a platform designed to keep you hooked. It keeps feeding you content that increases watch time. Ad exposure is also increased. The idea of freely exploring diverse range of videos is a myth. Here’s why.

Rigged Searches and Recommendations

You think you’re browsing freely. In truth YouTube’s algorithms are funneling you into content loops. These loops are crafted to keep you watching for as long as possible. They maximize your exposure to ads. Your searches are not genuine explorations. They are predetermined paths laid out by YouTube’s algorithm Recommendations are tailored to what you’ve already watched ensuring you stay in a comfort zone YouTube controls. The platform prioritizes engagement over genuine discovery, rigging search results to show you what it thinks will keep you glued to the screen.

Lack of True Engagement

The concept of engaging with wide array of content is an illusion. YouTube’s recommendation system makes it difficult to step outside your algorithmically determined interests. If you’re into tech reviews you will continue seeing tech reviews. Want to explore cooking? Good luck finding those videos unless you actively search for them. Even then your suggestions will quickly revert to your primary interests. This lack of diversity stifles true engagement. It also hinders exploration. You end up trapped in a bubble of repetitive content.

Claims vs. Reality

YouTube promises an open video platform where anyone can watch and discover anything. But this promise falls flat. You realize how manipulated your experience is. The platform’s main goal is to keep you engaged for longer periods. It does not provide a genuine browsing experience. By controlling search results and recommendations YouTube ensures you see content. It keeps you on the site. Regardless of whether it’s what you truly want to see. This undercuts the claim of being an open platform, exposing the reality of YouTube’s manipulative tactics.

Echo chambers of Instagram and YouTube

Instagram and YouTube are the worst offenders when it comes to creating echo chambers. Designed to keep you trapped within a narrow band of content, these platforms make it nearly impossible to break free and explore diverse perspectives. They're built to control us, showing us what they want us to see, not what we genuinely seek.

Instagram and YouTube are expertly designed to keep users engaged within specific range of content. They constantly feed us similar types of videos. They present posts that reinforce our existing beliefs. As a result our exposure to different viewpoints is limited. This isn't by accident. It's calculated move to maximize user engagement and ad revenue.

Both platforms use their comments and recommendation sections to subtly shape our beliefs. Comments that align with the platform's agenda are often pushed to top. Yes, you heard it right. Your comment section sequence can be totally different from your friends comment section sequence. Dissenting opinions are buried. Recommendations are tailored not to diversify our interests. They are designed to keep us hooked on more of the same. This ensures we spend more time on the platform

Users are shown what platforms want them to see not what they genuinely seek. This limits our ability to explore new ideas. And content freely. For instance you might start searching for variety of content. But YouTube's algorithm quickly narrows it down to what it thinks will keep you watching longer. This often radicalizes your content exposure in process.

Grand Deception and the Billion Dollar Lies

Let's break down how Big Tech uses user research and misleading solutions to maintain their dominance. Big Tech loves to tell us how they conduct deep user research to solve our problems. They make it seem like they’re listening to us, the users, to improve our experience. But the reality is far more sinister. They’re not solving problems; they’re creating new ways to trap us in their ecosystems and monetize every click, swipe, and like.

Take Google, for instance. They mandate that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) pre-install Google’s suite of apps on Android devices. This isn't offering better products—it's making sure you can’t escape Google’s grip. Every new Android device comes pre-loaded with Google apps, giving them prime visibility and usage. This isn't just unfair; it’s a calculated move to limit competition and keep users within their walled garden.

But it doesn’t stop there. Google’s anti-fragmentation agreements (AFA) and anti-competition clauses (ACC) restrict OEMs from developing and selling devices running on alternative versions of Android, also known as "forked" Android versions. This stifles innovation and ensures that no potential competitor can offer a better or different Android experience. The result? A market where Google reigns supreme, and innovation is suffocated.

To top it all off, Google uses revenue sharing agreements (RSA) to provide monetary incentives to OEMs, ensuring they exclusively pre-install Google’s search services. This practice reduces opportunities for rival search engines to compete, effectively choking off any chance of competition.

Google's walled world

Abuse of Dominant Position: On October 20 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) fined Google INR 1337.76 crore (approximately $162 million) for leveraging its dominant market position. This fine underscores the extent of Google’s anti-competitive behavior. It highlights their blatant disregard for fair market practices.

Mandatory Pre-Installation: Google required OEMs to pre-install its suite of apps on Android devices. This strategy restricted competition by limiting consumer choice. It ensured that Google’s apps remained front and center. This was regardless of user preference.

Anti-Fragmentation Agreements: By restricting OEMs from creating alternative versions of Android, Google effectively stifled innovation. This prevented development of potentially superior operating systems. It ensured Google’s continued dominance.

Revenue Sharing Agreements: Google provided financial incentives to OEMs to ensure exclusive pre-installation of Google’s search services. This practice further diminished opportunities for other search engines. It prevented them from competing on level playing field.

These aren’t just business maneuvers. They’re calculated strategies designed to crush the competition. These actions solidify Google’s monopoly.

Facebook’s Strategic Deception

Facebook another so-called beacon of innovation, uses similarly deceitful tactics to maintain its stranglehold on the market. Their strategy involves acquiring potential competitors and using restrictive platform practices to choke off any real competition.

Anticompetitive Acquisitions: Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were not about enhancing their own offerings. These moves were about neutralizing competitive threats. Internal communications revealed that these acquisitions aimed at preventing rivals from growing and challenging Facebook’s dominance (FTC v. Facebook Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03590).

Restrictive Platform Practices: Facebook controlled access to its APIs. They allowed access only to developers who agreed not to compete with Facebook. They also revoked API access from apps perceived as competitive threats. This further stifled competition.

Network Effects and Entry Barriers: Leveraging their extensive user base Facebook created high barriers to entry, preventing new competitors from emerging. This exclusionary conduct maintained Facebook’s monopoly power and harmed consumers by reducing choices and innovation.

Data exploitation and lack of transparency

Big Tech loves to cloak itself in the shiny veil of innovation, making us believe they're pushing the boundaries of technology for our benefit. But scratch the surface, and you see a different story—a story of mismanagement, poor market understanding, and colossal waste. Google's a prime example with its extensive list of terminated projects, each costing billions.

Billions Burnt: Google’s Discontinued Projects

Google has axed numerous projects over the years, each representing a huge investment of time and money. These aren’t minor tweaks or small ventures; these are major projects launched with great fanfare, only to be abandoned. Here are a few standouts:

• Google+: Intended to rival Facebook, it never gained the traction Google hoped for. Multiple security flaws led to its shutdown.

• Google Glass: Hyped as the future of augmented reality, it failed to resonate with consumers and was shelved.

• Project Ara: A modular smartphone project promising to revolutionize mobile phones, quietly canceled after repeated delays and lack of interest​ (Killed by Google)​​ (The Windows Club)​​ (WordStream)​.

Google spins these failures as part of their innovative spirit—trial and error in the quest for breakthroughs. But the truth is, many of these projects were poorly conceived and mismanaged from the start.

The Illusion of Innovation

Google’s marketing machine is brilliant at turning these failures into tales of bold experimentation. They present these abandoned projects as evidence of their willingness to push boundaries. But this narrative conceals an uncomfortable truth: Google’s real strength isn't in groundbreaking innovation, but in exploiting user data and manipulating markets to maintain dominance.

• Strategic Spin: Google uses slick marketing to position itself as an innovation leader. In reality, its core business heavily relies on advertising revenue from data exploitation.

• Reality Check: Projects like Google+ and Project Ara show that Google often overestimates its ability to understand and capture market needs.

Marketing vs. Reality

What Google promotes as innovation is often just strategic maneuvering designed to keep competitors at bay and ensure continued dominance. Here’s how they do it:

• Manipulating OEMs: Google forces Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to pre-install its apps, ensuring these apps get prime visibility on Android devices.

  
  

• Anti-Fragmentation Agreements: Google prevents OEMs from developing and selling devices running on modified versions of Android, stifling innovation and competition.

  
  

• Revenue Sharing Agreements: By offering monetary incentives for the exclusive pre-installation of Google services, they effectively shut out rival search engines and apps​ (Killed by Google)​​ (WordStream)​.

Google and Facebook want you to think they’re leading the charge in innovation. The truth is far less glamorous. These giants exploit our data for profit. They keep us in the dark about what they collect and how they use it. They’ve mastered art of manipulation and deception. All under the guise of providing “free” services.

Big Tech treats our data like gold. They collect it extensively. Often without clear consent and then monetize it. This isn’t about improving services for users. It’s about maximizing profits. Our clicks searches, likes and interactions are all meticulously tracked and analyzed. This data is then sold to advertisers who target us with hyper-personalized ads.

Why can’t we export our own data? It’s our information after all. These platforms lock it down. They prevent us from understanding what they collect and how it’s used. Full and anonymized platform-level user data should be available to the public via a simple API. Transparency is crucial. Users need to know what data is collected and how it’s used to make informed decisions.

Big Tech knows that if they were truly transparent about data practices their empires would crumble. Google’s control over Play Services APIs effectively denies market access. This affects potential competitors. Those who do not comply with its terms face exclusion. Consolidating its monopoly and keeping users within its ecosystem.

Transparency would reveal the extent of their exploitation and manipulation. It would show users that they’re not the product. They’re the prey. We need transparency. This is essential to hold these companies accountable. It helps to reclaim control over our own data.

Concluding thoughts

The truth is, the same resources, leverage, and money given to Big Tech, if allocated to any well-trained human brain, would undoubtedly result in some kind of innovation. There is nothing inherently magical about these companies' abilities. The real magic lies in the relentless exploitation and strategic manipulation of our data and behaviors.

It's time we stop being intimidated by Big Tech's illusion of innovation. Instead, we should demand transparency, fairness, and ethical practices. Innovation should benefit everyone, not just a select few at the top. It's our data, our privacy, and our digital future. Let's take it back.