Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook attended the hearing of the antitrust subcommittee of the House of Representatives of the United States on Wednesday local time, and answered a series of questions about antitrust, privacy protection and platform bias under the bombardment of members of Congress. The following is the transcript of the main contents of the hearing:
Democrats Blame Monopoly
The Democrats in the committee quickly pointed the finger at the monopoly problem. They cited documents obtained from inside technology companies, saying that these documents proved the monopoly behavior of these companies.
David Cicilline, the chairman of the anti-monopoly subcommittee and the representative, cross examined Google Sundar Pichai, CEO, asked to know how Google can import traffic into its own search pages and products. New York State Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about his email, which claimed that Instagram was a potential disruptive competitor of Facebook before it was acquired by Facebook. Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson repeatedly asked Apple CEO Tim Cook to answer whether Apple had unfairly acted against app developers in the App Store.
When answering these questions, CEOs mostly chose to avoid, claiming that they did not know the documents being asked or the details of the interaction.
For more than a year, Xixilin has led the investigation of American technology giants. At the beginning of the hearing, he lashed out at these companies, saying that their dominance had damaged the market economy, leaving consumers with no choice but to use their products.
Xixilin, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said in his opening speech: "Any action taken by any of these companies will have a profound and lasting impact on hundreds of millions of people among us. In short, they hold too much power."
Xixilin controls the overall process of the hearing, including how many rounds of questions can be asked by members of parliament. This means that he can extend the time for asking questions, rather than just five minutes, to dig out more information.
Sixilin was once the mayor of Providence, and currently serves as the leader of the Democratic Party of the anti-monopoly subcommittee, and is the main opponent of the technology platform. In more than a year, his team led the investigation, conducted hundreds of hours of interviews, and collected 1.3 million documents. The team currently includes legal scholars Lina Khan and Phillip Berenboick. The former is a legal scholar who wrote a legal review report on Amazon's influence. The latter served as the policy director of the consumer organization "Public Knowledge".
In recent months, Xixilin has spent a lot of time communicating with relevant enterprises to ensure that their CEOs will attend the hearing. This process is not smooth. When the committee asked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to attend and give testimony, Amazon did not respond directly. Finally, Sixilin threatened to issue a summons to Bezos, forcing Bezos to finally attend.
Xixilin said on Wednesday: "Our founders will not bow to the kings, and we should not bow to the kings of the Internet economy."
Republicans focus on platform bias
Republicans spent a lot of time bypassing antitrust issues and asking about the activities of these companies in China, as well as rumors that these companies suppressed the voice of conservatives.
Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio is the Republican leader of the Judicial Committee. In his opening speech, he listed a number of events where Republican officials were restricted by platform rules. (However, he did not mention that conservative publications and figures often appear in prominent positions on Facebook and other platforms.) He then asked Pichai whether Google would try to help Democratic presidential candidate Biden.
Among Republicans, the argument that technology platforms discriminate against conservatives has been circulating, but to a large extent, it has not been confirmed. U.S. President Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Jordan, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz all spoke highly of Facebook Twitter And YouTube deliberately weaken or delete the voice of conservatives on the platform, expressing concern.
This suspicion stems from the fact that Silicon Valley is dominated by workers who tend to be liberal. In November 2018, Facebook deleted an advertisement from an anti abortion organization that expressed support for Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican of Tennessee. Facebook said it did so because an image in the ad seemed to violate community rules. These events make people suspect that Facebook and other platforms will censor conservative content.
Trump recently issued an executive order to restrict the safe haven provisions in favor of Internet companies and retaliate against this so-called prejudice. In late May, Twitter tagged a series of messages sent by Trump with error messages.
Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz asked Google about another incident, that is, after employees raised concerns, Google decided to abandon the project of the US Department of Defense.
On antitrust issues, Republicans are cautious about stricter regulation.
James Sensenbrenner, the Republican representative of Wisconsin, said: "Big companies are not bad in nature." Ken Buck, the Republican representative of Colorado, also said: "Our witnesses have born entrepreneurial ideas from dormitories and garages, and you have the freedom to succeed. I don't think big is a bad thing. In fact, big is often a force for good. "
Members of Parliament ask the most questions
American media counted the number of questions asked by CEOs to find out which company's CEO was under the greatest pressure. The results showed that Zuckerberg was asked 62 questions, Bezos 59 questions, Cook 35 questions, and Pichai 61 questions.
Problems with Google focus on the cooperation between the search engine and the US Department of Defense
Representative Val Demings asked Google CEO Sandal Pichai about user data and privacy. Demins: "Although Google had to pay attention to user privacy in 2007, it will not need to do so in 2016. Do you think that the reason for this change is that Google has gained huge market power?" Pichai: "This is an important question, and I can try to explain it. You know, today we have made it easy for users to control their own data. We have simplified the settings so that they can turn personalized advertising on or off. We have merged most of the settings into 3 groups. We reminded users to conduct privacy checks, and one billion users were reminded at a time. "
Demins: "I'm worried about the situation of DoubleClick. Is this part of a larger model, that is, Google only buys companies to monitor Americans. Because of Google's dominant position, users have no choice but to accept. The more user data Google collects, the more money Google can earn. More user data means more money, is that so?" Pichai: "Generally speaking, this is not the case. Most of the data we collect today is to help users."
Pichai was asked many radical questions. Considering that he had attended the hearing a year ago and was also the most low-key among the corporate executives who testified on Wednesday, this situation is somewhat strange. Ask questions about Google's search engine and Google's decision to quit the US Department of Defense project after employees protested.
Sicilian, chairman of the anti-monopoly subcommittee, accused Google of blocking the content of other websites and limiting users to Google's "garden with walls" in order to make more profits from the advertising business. He said: "In my opinion, the evidence is very clear. With Google becoming the portal to access the Internet, the company began to abuse its market position, using the monitoring of network traffic to identify competitive threats and attack competitors."
Pichai denied this statement, and returned to Google's communication point, that Google has competitors in many specific markets, such as Amazon in the shopping field. He also said that most of Google's search results do not display advertisements, and highlighting the answers to users' queries is in the best interests of users. According to StatCounter, an online research company, Google's search share in the global market has reached 92%.
Due to Google's dominance, other websites rely heavily on Google's search engine for traffic. In recent years, Google has begun to make more use of the top position of search results to provide its own information in queries about local enterprises, flights and hotels. This angered other websites, because as Google began to display these information, the traffic of other websites declined.
Republicans will focus on the relationship between Google and the US Department of Defense. Google has previously withdrawn from its technical cooperation with the Pentagon. The system of the two sides can analyze the pictures taken by UAVs and identify specific objects, such as buildings, vehicles and people. Google employees strongly protested the cooperation with the military.
Ken Barker and Matt Gates, two Republicans in the committee, questioned why Google had to withdraw from the cooperation with the Ministry of Defense, while still operating an artificial intelligence laboratory in China. Pichai denied their allegations and pointed out that Google still has cooperative relations with the US military, including information security projects with the Ministry of Defense.
Lawmaker said the document showed that Facebook tried to eliminate the "competitive threat"
The antitrust subcommittee said that in the 13 months of investigating the influence of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, the committee collected 1.3 million documents. At the hearing, the legislator began to display some of the documents.
Several documents related to Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg's intention to acquire Instagram, the photo sharing application, that is, to eliminate competitive threats through acquisition. In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for about $1 billion in cash and stock.
In these documents, Zuckerberg pressed Kevin Systrom, the co-founder of Instagram, to accept Facebook's initial $500 million acquisition offer. In other emails, Zuckerberg clearly pointed out that Instagram is a "competitive threat" that needs to be addressed.
Jim Sensenbrenner, the Republican representative of Wisconsin, said at the hearing that these documents prove that Facebook regards Instagram as "a powerful threat that may lead to the loss of Facebook's business. Instead of trying to compete with Instagram, Facebook directly acquired the company."
In this regard, Zuckerberg said that although Instagram would certainly succeed after the fact, it was still far from such a success in the acquisition. At that time, Instagram had many competitors, including Path and other start-up companies that have now failed.
Zuckerberg said: "This acquisition is very successful, not only because of the ability of the founders, but also because we have made a large investment in infrastructure construction and promotion. I think this is a success story in the United States."
Cook is questioned about Apple App Store
In the first few hours of the hearing, Apple CEO Tim Cook was almost ignored. But in the last hour, he had to start defending himself.
First of all, Democratic Reps Val Demins and Lucy Kay McBath from Florida and Georgia questioned that Apple deleted some parental control applications after it launched its own developed tools in 2018. American media reported that these applications were taken off the shelves last year.
Cook said that Apple removed these applications for privacy protection, not to avoid competition. McBass then mentioned an email. In this email, Apple executive Phil Schiller told a worried parent that they could now choose Apple's parental control tool as an alternative. Cook said that he could not see the email on his screen.
Recently, Airbnb and ClassPass began to sell virtual courses due to the epidemic, while Apple asked these companies to charge commissions. Gerald Nadler, the Democratic Representative of New York, asked, "Isn't this using the epidemic for profit?" Cook responded that Apple's regulations require that companies selling digital services should pay commissions to Apple, but Apple is cooperating with companies forced to adjust their business because of the epidemic.
Apple said this week that it was still negotiating with Airbnb and ClassPass on the fee standard. A source close to ClassPass said that earlier this month, ClassPass chose to remove online courses from the iPhone app because Apple told the company that the deadline had expired.
The accusation that Apple is facing is that the company arbitrarily implements the rules and requirements for application developers and strangles their business according to their own wishes.
Cook said in his opening remarks that the rules of the Apple App Store "apply equally to every developer".
Earlier, Democrats in the House antitrust subcommittee tried to prove that Cook's statement was not true.
Hank Johnson, the Democratic House of Representatives of Georgia, asked about China's search engine Baidu Whether they have received special treatment from Apple. Cook responded that he was not sure about it. The documents subsequently released by the committee seemed to show that Cook told Baidu CEO in an email in 2014 that Baidu would enter the "fast track of application review", and two employees would help manage this process.
Johnson then pointed out that Apple currently allows Amazon not to pay 30% commission for streaming video services. In exchange, Amazon and Apple's products can work together better. App store sharing is currently one of the biggest complaints of developers against Apple. Cook responded that any other company could reach the same agreement.
Cook pointed out that Apple must treat application developers fairly and remain competitive in charging commissions. He said: "We are facing fierce competition on both the developer side and the user side. The competition is so fierce that I think it is a street battle to compete for share in the smartphone market."
However, in fact, there is an obvious duopoly in the smartphone software market. Software from Apple and Google is used in almost every smartphone in the world.
Amazon's relationship with third-party sellers puts Bezos under pressure
In the process of facing Congress for the first time, Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon, had to defend a business Amazon was proud of. This is the relationship between Amazon and third-party sellers, whose products are flooded with Amazon's online stores.
At the beginning of the hearing, Bezos introduced himself as an example of the success of American style democracy. He has a brave mother and an immigrant father who supports himself, "cultivating my curiosity and encouraging me to build a grand dream". He brought this spirit to Amazon, and the development of Amazon is also beneficial to Americans.
He said: "Our focus on customers has driven our success."
However, Bezos also faced questions later, and almost all of these questions came from Democrats. He had to explain whether Amazon had harmed the interests of sellers, who accounted for about 60% of the sales of Amazon's platform.
The constituency of Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal includes Amazon's Seattle headquarters. She said that former employees of Amazon told the committee that they regarded private seller data as a "candy store" that could be mined to develop self owned brand goods that Amazon operated and competed with third-party sellers. Rep. Lucy McBass said that during the communication with the committee, "they used words like bullying, fear and panic to describe their relationship with Amazon". Sicilian, chairman of the anti-monopoly subcommittee, said that one seller compared Amazon to a drug dealer.
Bezos said that he did not agree with Cilicillin's statement. He told McBass: "Generally speaking, third-party sellers have done very well on Amazon." He told Jayapal that Amazon has formulated "a policy that prohibits the use of seller data to help our private brand business, but I can't guarantee that there has been no violation of the policy".
He said many times that sellers benefited from Amazon's development and investment. When Amazon decided to invite third-party sellers to sell products on its retail platform 20 years ago, Amazon believed that more product choices would enable both Amazon and sellers to develop better.
According to the data provided by Xixilin, Amazon controls 75% of all e-commerce sales in the United States. Bezos responded that "I have different views on this", while the seller "has many choices". "I believe Amazon is a great company and we work very hard. I think we are the best."
Jayapal continued to ask Bezos questions about how to deal with employees who violate internal policies. She said that Amazon "gets far more data than competitive third-party sellers", for example, how many shoppers have seen a product but never bought it.
Bezos responded that he was "proud of what we have done for third-party sellers on this platform". However, his answer was interrupted by Jayapal for lack of time.
Summary of Four CEO's Phrases
How often do technology giants like to repeat what they have said over and over again? How many times did the CEO of the company muddle through with beautiful slogans and prepared phrases? How many times have they used competitors as a cover? （TikTok！ Wal-Mart ！ Between each other!)
In order to answer these questions, we studied the frequency of certain arguments and phrases used by Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Sandel Pichai of Google, Tim Cook of Apple and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook throughout the hearing.
Our scale is not that big
Every time the CEO argues that his company is not so powerful because of its small market share or limited influence.
We are good for America
Every time the CEO bragged about how his company could increase employment, promote economic growth, accelerate innovation or help the United States in other ways.
We will reply to you as soon as possible
Each time, the CEO did not directly answer the question, but said that he would reply after the company investigated the matter.
It should be feared, not us
Every time the CEO tries to divert attention by referring to competitors or by saying "if they are curbed, Chinese companies will take the lead".
Technology executives seem to work in technology offices.
Video background score
During the epidemic, video conference has become the main way of dialogue. At the same time, we are becoming more and more picky about the background decoration of our colleagues. So, what score can be given to the video conference background of the executives of the Big Four in Wednesday's congressional hearing?
RoomRater, a popular Twitter user, gave an evaluation method of scoring the video conference background with a score of 1-10. Inspired, we also gave a rough score on the room background displayed by Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook executives in the hearing.
Sandel Pichai: Elegant and minimalist style, soft and cool colors. Behind him was a modern bookcase, piled with several books, some pottery decorations, and a lovely pot of aloe plants. There are printed documents on the table for reference. The wall style is very textured.
Score: 7 (10), appropriate.
Tim Cook: Hardly any background. The taupe walls without much decoration. A row of slate flower pots behind him, small pieces of green plants make the background less monotonous and noisy. There is a MacBook in front for reference.
Score: 6 (10), because we expected Apple's style to be more gorgeous.
Jeff Bezos: Bezos has the warmest background among the four. It seems that Bezos is sitting in his Seattle office with a whole row of bookshelves behind him. Gold plated sculptures are a bit like fashionable atomic shapes or some scientific awards. The pottery and vases are beautiful.
Score: 8 (10) The office atmosphere is good. 2 points will be deducted if the network is not good.
Mark Zuckerberg: Almost nothing. Bare white wood background. The only recognizable ones are two small handles, which may be drawer handles. No plants, no books, no warmth. The background seemed so harmless that it seemed like a silent demonstration. However, the score should be given to the people who set up the lights and cameras. Of course, the focus must be Zuckerberg.
Score: 4 (10) totally unrecognizable. (At least one bookshelf will be shown to us next time.)
Fashion people say that their clothes are intended to show humility.
They don't look like the big shots, the masters of everything, or the "kings of the online economy," said David Cicilline, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
"They" - the executives of the four giants: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Sandel Pichai of Google, Tim Cook of Apple and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, do not seem to have any big style.
In fact, because of the epidemic, they sat in their offices to participate in the hearing, while a group of members of Congress wearing masks faced them, sitting sparsely in the hearing hall of the office building in Lebourne, just like an army waiting for battle. Before this trend, the four executives were like boys in graduation gowns, rather than the four knights of doom who had the power to destroy heaven and earth.
Of course, they dress on purpose.
Zuckerberg, sitting in front of a pure white background like a barn siding, wore a blue suit, a blue and white tie, and his bow tie was a bit loose and a bit crooked, which may be his own pull to facilitate deep breathing.
Cook chose a light gray tie in the same color as his frame. The bow tie leans to one side. The clothes are dark gray, with a row of zen green plants behind. During this period, he occasionally took a mug to drink tea.
Pichai also wore a gray tie with fine lines, although the texture of the wall decoration behind was more eye-catching. The tie matches perfectly with the gray suit he wears, his hair and beard, and the gray pottery on the file cabinet behind him. The gray pottery is planted with his green plants - part of the minimalist style full of artistic sense. His hands folded on the desk in front of him, exuding a kind calm.
Bezos made his first appearance before Congress. Dark suits and ties, set off by warm lights and wooden bookshelves, are not so old-fashioned. There are various vases and decorations behind. Put (a lot of?) snacks in places that can't be seen by the camera, and occasionally have a bite.
Snacks! The CEO of Amazon is actually an ordinary person.
Of course, that's the point. If you want to persuade a group of legislators who always use the words "dominant position", "power", "billions" and "trillion" to describe you, and tell them that this is not really the case, then it is not enough to just have a humble opening statement and ambitious dreams. The side you want to show is not Superman, but Clark Kent (Superman's ordinary identity).
There are many surveys of technology companies.
A number of federal and state antitrust officials, as well as legislators presiding over today's hearing, are launching investigations into these technology companies.
The Justice Department's investigation of Google seems to be the most thorough. It is expected that the agency will soon announce a lawsuit against Google, with the focus on accusing the company of violating the anti competition law in online advertising.
The Federal Trade Commission is also investigating Facebook and is preparing to dismiss its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and several other top executives. The agency's investigation seems to focus on whether Facebook has killed its competitors by acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram to illegally maintain its monopoly position in the social networking field. The investigation may last until next year.
Other investigations are also ongoing, but progress is not as rapid as that of Google. The Justice Department also joined hands with the state attorney general to investigate Apple's control of the app store. The Justice Department is also investigating Facebook's online advertising business. However, the survey on Facebook is progressing slowly.
State investigators have been studying whether Amazon abused its power against sellers on the platform. The Federal Trade Commission is also investigating Amazon, but progress is slow.
The Trump government requires the FCC to narrow the scope of protection for technology companies
The Trump administration asked the Federal Communications Commission this week to narrow the scope of interpretation of a law. This law can protect Internet platforms such as Facebook and YouTube from certain lawsuits caused by their hosted content.
This request originates from an executive order signed by Trump in May, which is also part of the President and his allies' continuous action. They say technology companies are deleting or suppressing conservative content. Although there is evidence that conservative websites and representatives perform well on the Internet, Trump and most of his conservative supporters have criticized these Internet platforms for many times, accusing them of violating certain regulations and deleting or modifying content.
In a petition on Monday, the U.S. Department of Commerce asked the European Commission to clarify that this law, known as Article 230, will not protect the Internet platform when adjusting or highlighting user content based on "reasonably identifiable views or information" without prompt or request. This law will also restrict Internet platforms from being responsible for user content under what circumstances.
In a statement released Wednesday morning, White House spokesman Kayleigh McEnany said that President Trump hoped the Federal Communications Commission would clarify that "Article 230 of the law does not allow social media companies to evade civil liability by modifying or editing users' statements".
Trump later said on Twitter:
"If Congress can't bring justice to large technology companies - which they should have done a few years ago - I will do it myself through executive orders. In Washington, the people of our country are tired of talking and not doing anything for years!"
The petition is now in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission. This is an independent organization, currently led by the Republican Party Chairman Ajit Pai, who was appointed to this post by Trump. Brian Hart, spokesman of the Federal Communications Commission, said: "The FCC will carefully review this petition."
If the hearing goes off track, Congress cannot be blamed
Members of Congress were ridiculed for raising some absurd questions in similar technical hearings. This situation may happen again in today's hearing, but it is not entirely their fault.
These large technology companies deliberately make themselves difficult to understand.
Apart from these companies themselves, few people can really understand how Amazon affects the price of products we buy on its website or other retailers, nor can they assess how Google redirects people to its own website, or how Apple guides people to use its own applications, How do Facebook employees beat their competitors by understanding our online preferences. All of these, from the design point of view, are shrouded in mystery.
Large technology companies should not allow this to continue. Even companies like Facebook and Google are asking the government to provide more policy guidance and regulations on thorny issues such as election protection and hate speech. This means that it is in the vested interests of the public and technology companies to make these fact finding meetings as productive as possible.
Used by executives Cisco Webex video conference remote testimony
Generally speaking, in congressional hearings, witnesses in dark suits are sitting at risk, and their entourage is sitting in the back. Members of Parliament asked them questions from above. Photographers with long guns and short guns stood one after another, while photographers tracked and recorded the whole process.
But this time it's not like this.
Due to the pandemic of the new coronavirus, the chief executives of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google attended a House subcommittee meeting online this Wednesday. Remote transmission of video increases the complexity of the hearing, and any information from assistants and subordinates may occur outside the camera.
Although many technology giants are making their own video calling software, none of them will use their own tools. Instead, they will join the online hearing through Cisco's Webex video conference service.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Webex has been the preferred service object of Congress. White House spokesman Peter Whippy said that the House's administration committee had certified the system and believed that the software met business and technical requirements.
Jean Rosauer, head of the government department of Webex, said that during this period, Webex had been used for more than 100 congressional hearings. Cisco added that in recent months, the number of virtual meetings held through Webex has reached more than three times the normal level.
Ms. Russell said in a statement: "Congressional hearings, such as the upcoming House Judiciary Committee hearings, have their own traditions, policies and established procedures, and we must ensure that these hearings can be conducted safely online." Ms. Russell also said that Cisco is "very proud" of its role in maintaining congressional ties.
Competitors of technology giants give their opinions before the hearing
For months, many competitors of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon have been busy discussing the influence of these giants with members of the House of Representatives. Others chose to make comments this week to position their image at the hearing and influence the inquiry.
On Wednesday morning, Kevin Mayer, CEO of TikTok, a Chinese video application, issued a statement. In his statement, he said that Facebook would probably quote this application at the hearing as an example of how social network competition is booming. Because TikTok comes from China and has been responding to the review of the United States.
Mayer said in the statement: "Since our company is of Chinese origin, we have been subjected to more scrutiny. We accept this and hope to complete the challenge through greater transparency and accountability. We believe that it is crucial to show users, advertisers, creators and regulators that we are an enterprise that abides by American laws and is willing to take responsibility in American society. "
He also pointed out that Facebook hopes to launch some "fake products", such as Reels similar to TikTok. Facebook has a history of imitating competitive products.
Mayer said, "Let's focus on fair and open competition for consumer services, rather than maliciously attacking our competitors. Facebook, in the name of patriotism, aims to make us disappear from the United States."
Other technology companies also expressed their own ideas about the hearing. Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, a game company headquartered in Cary, North Carolina, slammed the price fraud and unfair policies of Apple and Google, which he called "App Store Monopoly".
Sweeney said in an interview on Tuesday: "Apple and Google have seriously hindered the competition." He especially criticized Apple for charging 30% for digital products, which makes it difficult for small companies to provide better treatment for artists.
Apple said that a 30% commission from many of its app stores is a standard fee. Mr. Sweeney called this statement "stupid nonsense". The Epic version of the app store only charges developers 12%.
Sweeney started programming on an Apple II Plus computer in 1982, and created Epic nine years later. He said he felt obligated to speak up to Apple.
Sweeney said, "Every technology company doing business in the world will have to accept the power we give to other companies."
What was the outcome of this hearing?
After lawmakers collected hundreds of hours of interviews and obtained more than 1.3 million documents about Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, the CEOs of these companies will testify in Congress at 1 p.m. on Wednesday to defend their powerful businesses.
The leader of the New Gilded Age, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will testify together in the US Congress for the first time to defend their business behavior. Members of the antitrust subcommittee of the Department of Justice of the United States House of Representatives have investigated these Internet giants for more than a year. They are accused of suppressing competitors and harming consumers' interests. The details of the documents collected by the subcommittee are not clear, but it is said that these documents involve some acquisition transactions of the two companies, as well as internal communication between executives.
It will be a strange sight. These four people run a company worth nearly 5 trillion dollars, including two of the richest individuals in the world. And they are ready to argue with Congress that their enterprises are not so powerful.
This will also be the first time in another way: Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Cook will testify through video conference, instead of standing side by side on the witness stand in Washington to swear.
At the hearing, each question of the 15 members of the anti-monopoly subcommittee has a five minute presentation time. David Cicilline, the representative of the Rhode Island Democratic Party and chairman of the antitrust subcommittee, will control the number of questioning rounds and may extend the hearing to the evening.
The antitrust issues faced by Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are both complex and different: Amazon is accused of abusing its role as a retailer and a third-party seller platform; Apple was accused of unfairly using the influence of its app store to stop competitors and force them to pay high commissions; Competitors said that Facebook is in a monopoly position in the field of social networking; As Google dominates online advertising, search and smartphone software, its parent company Alphabet is facing a number of antitrust allegations.
Democrats may also deviate from the topic of antitrust and raise concerns about false information on social media. It can be guessed that some Republicans will change the subject. They are worried about the liberal bias of Silicon Valley companies and accuse the conservative voices of being censored by the platform.
Today's hearing reminds us of Bill Gates 22 years ago
"The technology industry is the engine of innovation, job creation and U.S. economic strength. The competition here is becoming increasingly fierce, and you can understand it with a click of the mouse. Of course, we have done well, but consumers are the biggest winners."
This is the key point of Bill Gates' testimony before a Senate subcommittee more than 20 years ago. When leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google testified on Wednesday, it is certain that the same theme will also be highlighted.
Despite the differences, this week's appearance of technology company executives reminds us of 22 years ago Microsoft The torture of the chief executive in congress.
In 1998, the focus of attention completely fell on Gates. He is the co-founder of Microsoft, a technology giant in the personal computer era. This time, the leaders of four large technology companies will stand in this position. At the same time, they will appear remotely through the Internet due to the COVID-19 epidemic.
Today, more problems arise. At the end of the 1990s, people worried that Microsoft would use its dominant position in the personal computer market to strangle the Internet upstart. Nowadays, the market strength of technology giants is worrying, but their power in business and communication fields, and their influence on public opinion and politics are also worrying.
When Gates testified, the official investigation of Microsoft by federal regulators and dozens of states was going on smoothly. Google and Facebook are now facing the same situation, and Amazon and Apple are also facing antitrust scrutiny.
More than 20 years ago, under sharp questions, Gates tactfully refused to use the word "monopoly".
But when Jim Barksdale, president of Netscape, the Internet company Microsoft most concerned, testified that day, he asked the audience using personal computers to raise their hands.
About three quarters of the people in the room did so. Then, he asked, how many people use Microsoft's Windows operating system? Almost the same number of people raised their hands again.
Mr. Baxter continued: "See, this is monopoly!"
