Forget About the Federal Government and the States—Cities Should Regulate Big Tech
In his 2016 book, The Attention Merchants, law professor and tech scholar Tim Wu tells the story of Paris in the 1860’s and the brightly colored posters — first introduced by Jules Cheret — that came to dominate the cityscape. Initially, because of the novelty, color, and movement-like quality of the posters, they were embraced by citizens and even admired. They were also profitable, and before long the city was overrun, from chimney to sidewalk, by posters. At that point, writes Wu,

“…critics said that the advertising poster was destroying her [Paris’s] reputation as the world’s most beautiful city. Groups including the Society for the Protection of the Landscape and Aesthetics of France, and Les Amis de Paris (Friends of Paris), gained followings by declaring war on the ‘ugly posters.’”

Eventually, a veritable anti-poster movement was born and these groups and others began to lobby city government to regulate them. According to Wu,

“In Paris, the municipal authorities did indeed take aggressive action, restricting the placement of posters, which they came to view as a blight, a weed in need of containment.”

This brief history of posters in Paris is instructive for us today, especially as it concerns social media and targeted advertising. To be sure, there are numerous reasons Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have come under increased scrutiny as of late and are now under antitrust investigation from 50 state and territory attorney generals, the FTC and DOJ and have seen a spate of federal legislation proposed against them meant to curtail some of the addictive technologies they utilize and regulate free speech on their platforms. This is nothing to say of the argument that Big Tech stifles innovation and poses a threat to democracy.

The Problem With Targeted Advertising

Underneath all of these challenges facing Silicon Valley companies is their business model — built on the harvesting of data and the implementation of targeted advertising. While for years targeted advertising was tolerated because of the world of social media and search it brought to us for “free,” some are beginning to wonder out loud if it should be banned. The nefarious effects of targeted advertising include being able to choose the demographics of who sees ads, down to race, age, and marital status. Furthermore, Facebook can identify when teens are feeling “insecure” or “anxious” and use targeted advertising to exploit them at their weakest.

The U.S. has a long history of regulating advertising, though it has yet to do so in regards to targeted advertising on Facebook, Google, and Amazon. The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 banned cigarette ads on television and radio, the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act dealt with the marketing of 900 numbers to children under 12, and even in the digital age legislation has been passed to protect children from data collection.

Cities Should Regulate Big Tech

And while these laws set an important precedent for regulating targeted advertising, they were all administered at the federal level. Perhaps we would do well and take a cue from the Parisians of yesteryear, and start with regulating advertising not at the federal level, but at the municipal level.

There is a tendency in American politics, whenever problems are identified, to think they need to be addressed at the highest level. To be sure the federal government has a role to play in the regulation of advertising and has done well to protect children and keep cigarette ads off the airwaves. But what if instead of starting at the top, we started at the local level? The cogs that power the machine that is the federal government are many and slow. Local governments are much smaller and more agile.

Mid-sized American cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle have the progressive pedigree and are nimble enough that they could pass ordinances regulating how Big Tech companies operate within city limits. That means they could ban targeted advertising on devices that are within their jurisdiction. And without a doubt Google, Facebook, and Amazon know where each and every device is.

This would actually be a service to the rest of the country and the federal government as lessons could be learned as to what works and doesn’t work when it comes to regulating Big Tech. It was Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who wrote that states are the “laboratories of democracy,” but in reality it is our cities that fill that role today. For example, Berkley, California, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and St. Paul, Minnesota are pioneers in ranked choice voting and Stockton, California is currently running a pilot program to study the effects of universal basic income (UBI) on residents.

Cities Have Regulated the Tech Industry Before

And cities are not without a history of regulating disruptive tech startups that seek to do business on the roads and in the houses of residents. When Uber came to town dozens of cities scrambled to respond and regulate in a way that was fair to all involved. Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas emerged as leaders and critics of the destructive business practices of Uber and implemented regulation accordingly.

With Airbnb, Seattle and and New York have responded swiftly and effectively, keeping the balance of power in city hall and ensuring the platform follows the rules if it wants to keep operating in their lucrative markets. In Seattle, a short term renter’s license is required for individuals to join Airbnb as hosts, and New York requires the tech platform to strictly adhere to its “One Home, One Host,” policy.

Some cities have even begun to work together. In the wake of the scooter craze, the non profit, Open Mobility Foundation was created and is utilized by numerous cities including New York, Chicago, San Francisco and others to “develop[e] and promote technology used in commercial products that either use the right-of-way or that help government entities manage the public right-of-way.” Essentially, Open Mobility serves as a tool for city planners to see who is using scooters and how are they using them.

Big Tech Won’t Go Quietly

Of course regulating Big Tech at the municipal level might not be as easy as it sounds. Google and Facebook aren’t Lime or Bird. Their not even Uber or Lyft. They are two of the most resourced companies in the history of the world and are not afraid to lobby. So far that lobbying has taken place on capitol hill, but if a wave of municipal regulation overtook the country, they would move their efforts to every city hall in America. And whereas officials in Austin might have been fine with Uber and Lyft leaving town, people would rebel if Google and Facebook voluntarily pulled out of certain area codes or made their services paid products in particular jurisdictions.

Even so, cities that band together (or banned together) would have some leverage over the social media and search behemoths. Google especially would have to weigh the cost of not complying or pulling out of a city as ethical alternatives like Duck Duck Go are profitable, growing, and waiting in the wings.

The timing might be perfect. Just as the citizens of Paris in the 1860’s grew weary of their cityscape tarnished by ads, Americans are tired of an internet landscape polluted with targeted advertising. There is no reason to wait for the FTC or DOJ to do something about it, cities have the progressive pedigree, the precedent, and the power to end targeted ads. Now. SDG.

John Thomas is a freelance writer. His writing has appeared at The Public Discourse, The American Conservative, and The Federalist. He writes regularly at Soli Deo Gloria.
['John Thomas']
['Tech', 'Government', 'Social Media', 'Society', 'Technology']