Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

The most important stories about money and politics in the race for the White House

The writer is Director of International Policy at Stanford University’s Cyber ​​​​Policy Center and Special Advisor to the European Commission

Earlier this month, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Elon Musk reminding the X-CEO of his duty to moderate content before an online discussion with Donald Trump. Musk responded with a meme containing the F-word. The response was as childish as it was indicative of Musk’s superiority complex.

Technology managers are increasingly resorting to threatening politicians and governments when they make democratically legitimate proposals that do not fit their business models. Politicians should take a tougher stance against threats to withhold investment or withdraw from markets. Their own independence and authority are at stake.

Attempts to exert pressure vary in both maturity and scale. Thousands of Musk’s Starlink cellular systems are in Ukraine, many of them used by the military. In 2022, Musk threatened to stop payments for terminals he donated after an online dispute with a Ukrainian diplomat. He later announced he had changed his mind.

Meta and Google both put pressure on the Australian government for passing a media law that would force them to pay for news content. Google threatened to shut down its search engine but instead opted to make deals with media companies. Meta has shut down its news service. Last year, Sam Altman said the EU’s efforts to regulate artificial intelligence could cause OpenAI to shut down its operations in Europe. EU regulators were undeterred and OpenAI stayed, now saying it is committed to complying with the law.

Big tech companies can leverage their massive user base to exert pressure. A small company has far less leverage. These threats are not typical lobbying behavior. They could have a real impact on the public interest. Access to news sources deprives the public of important information, and blocking internet access in a conflict zone puts people at risk.

In the US, Kamala Harris, who had just been nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate, was immediately confronted with demands from wealthy tech donors. Some Silicon Valley billionaires hope that Harris will replace Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, who is responsible for antitrust law and has been involved in high-profile disputes with the tech giants. Other executives appear to be waiting to see whether she advances her political agenda before supporting her.

Some in the industry argue that flexing muscles is better in public than in secret. But threats are wrong, whether they are made behind closed doors or in broad daylight. Democratic leaders and all citizens should confront them all, no matter who the messenger is and what the stakes are.

When British regulators blocked Microsoft’s planned merger with gaming giant Activision, the company’s president, Brad Smith, apparently hoping to insult London, said: “Brussels is a place where you can sit down and actually talk to the regulators who are accountable to elected politicians.” We must hope that these “talks” are not conducted with a knife on the table.

The fact that tech companies are resorting to intimidation tactics is another sign of their outsized power. Some corporate leaders have become so powerful that they believe they can manipulate democratic processes – or avoid them altogether. Rather than backing down, as political leaders all too often do, companies should pay a price for their aggressiveness and potentially end up losing contracts or other lucrative access to governments (which are still the biggest IT funders). Threats should never be rewarded.

Harris has the opportunity to firmly reject the posturing of Big Tech and Big VC firms and use this position to her campaign advantage, setting her apart from her opponent. Donald Trump is keen to win the support of Silicon Valley. His vice presidential candidate, JD Vance, has close ties to Peter Thiel and enjoys the support of other influential technology companies.

Earlier this year, Trump radically changed his position on a TikTok ban in the US after meeting TikTok investor and political donor Jeff Yass. However, Trump said he had not spoken to Yass about the company.

Harris should take a clear line and defend Democratic primacy in technology policy. Her response to campaign financiers will set the tone for technology policy later in her presidency. She needs to make clear who the real executive is now, not in November.

Whether through a childish meme or seemingly respectful communication, over the internet or in a closed-door meeting, threats from powerful leaders must not be accepted. The bullies must not be allowed to win.