Mindfuck

  On the Internet, there are clearly extremely dominant market players. Google accounts for more than 90 percent of all search traffic, and almost 70 percent of adults active on social media use Facebook. But this does not make them universal infrastructure per se. When tech platforms suffer an outage, we can survive and cope for longer (albeit not indefinitely) than we would if the same thing happened with electricity. On the infrequent occasions when Google’s search engine has failed, users coped by moving to other, lesser-known search engines until Google patched its problem. There are also cycles of popularity for large Internet players that are not found in physical infrastructure. MySpace was once the preeminent social media platform, before Facebook crushed it, whereas we rarely if ever encounter market cycles with water or electric companies.

  That said, the Internet’s dominant players do share things in common with physical utilities. Like physical utilities, these architectures often serve as a de facto backbone of commerce and society, where their existence has become a given of day-to-day life. Businesses have come to passively rely upon the existence of Google’s search engine for their workforces, for example. And this is not a bad thing. Search engines and social media benefit from network effects, where the more people use the service, the more useful the service becomes. As with physical utilities, scale can create a huge benefit to the consumer, and we do not want to impede this public benefit. However, as with other natural monopolies, the same kinds of risks threaten consumers. And it is these potential harms that we must account for in a new set of rules.

  So, in full recognition that there are essential differences between the Internet and physical infrastructure, I will use “Internet utilities” as a term of convenience to mean something similar to but different from a traditional utility: An “Internet utility” is a service, application, or platform whose presence has become so dominant on the Internet that it becomes affected with the public interest by the very nature of its own scale. The regulation of Internet utilities should recognize the special place they hold in society and commerce and impose a higher standard of care toward users. These regulations should take the form of statutory duties, with penalties benchmarked to annual profits as a way to stop the current situation, in which regulatory infractions are negotiated and accounted for as a cost of doing business.

  In the same way we do not penalize the scale of electric companies, the scale of Internet utilities should not be penalized where there are network effects of genuine social benefit. In other words, this is not about breaking up large technology companies; this is about making them accountable. However, in exchange for maintaining their scale, Internet utilities should be required to act proactively as responsible stewards of what eventually evolve into our digital commons. They must be made to understand that scale evokes innate public interests that in some cases will, by necessity, supersede their private interests in making profit. As with other utilities, this must include compliance with higher user safety standards specific to software applications and a new code of digital consumer rights. These new digital consumer rights should serve as the basis of universal terms and conditions, in that the interests of Internet users are properly accounted for in areas where technology companies have continuously failed.

  4. PUBLIC STEWARDSHIP OF THE DIGITAL COMMONS

  The unrestricted power of these Internet utilities to impact our public discourse, social cohesion, and mental health, whether intentionally or through incompetence and neglect, must also be subject to public accountability. A new digital regulatory agency should be established to enforce this new digital regulatory framework with statutory sanctioning powers. In particular, these agencies should contain technically competent ombudsmen empowered with rights to conduct proactive technical audits of platforms on behalf of the public. We should also use market-based reinforcement mechanisms, such as the requirement of Internet utilities to hold insurance for harms incurred from data misuse. In requiring insurance for data breaches, linked to the market-rate value of that data, we could create corrective financial pressure to do better.

  We have seen the value of personal data create entirely new business models and huge profits for social media companies. Platforms such as Facebook have vigorously argued that they are a “free” service, and if consumers do not have to pay for the service, the platform cannot be complicit in anticompetitive practice. However, this argument requires one to accept that the exchange of personal data for use of a platform is not an exchange of value, when it plainly is. There are entire marketplaces that valuate, sell, and license personal data. The flaw in current antitrust approaches for large tech companies is that the value of the consumer’s data has not been properly accounted for by regulators.

  If we actually considered the rising value in the personal data provided by consumers to platforms, we’d conclude that consumers have continuously been ripped off by these companies, which are not proportionately increasing their platform’s value to consumers. In this light, consumers are giving more value via their data to these dominant platforms without receiving reciprocal benefits. There may be an argument in America’s current antitrust laws that on this basis, the data exchange has been costing consumers more. However, even if this were the case, this is an overly narrow test of what is fair and right for consumers. Instead, were we to create a new classification of Internet utilities, we could use a broader public interest test for the operation, growth, and mergers-and-acquisitions activity of these firms.

  However, unlike physical utilities, social media and search engines are not so essential as to be irreplaceable, so regulations should also account for the healthy benefits of industry evolution. We want to avoid regulations that entrench the position of currently dominant Internet utilities at the expense of newer and better offerings. But we also need to reject the notion that any regulation of scaled giants would somehow impede new challengers. To follow this logic would mean that safety and environmental regulation of the oil sector would inhibit the emergence of renewable energy in the future, which makes no sense. And if we are concerned about the inhibition of market evolution, then we could require Internet utilities to share their dominant infrastructure with smaller, competing challengers, to improve consumer choice in the same way dominant telecom companies share communications infrastructure with smaller players. Safety and conduct standards of existing large players are not mutually incompatible with the continuation of technological evolution. In this light, principle-based rather than technology-based regulation should be created so that we are careful not to embed old technologies or outdated business models into regulatory codes.

  Thanks. And good luck.

  To my parents, Kevin and Joan, who taught me to be brave, to stand up for myself, and to do the right thing

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  -

  So often whistleblowers are positioned as lone Davids on a mission to singlehandedly take on Goliath. But in my case, I was never alone. There were so many people without whom none of this would have been possible. From lawyers to journalists, sisters to taxi drivers—many people have contributed greatly to this story, and I am so utterly grateful for their advice, resilience, patience, and tenacity. I want to especially acknowledge all of the women who supported me in this journey. It was women who made this story possible.

  THE LAWYERS

  For defending me no matter the odds, and for being the coolest lawyer someone could ever have, I would like to first thank my brilliant lead lawyer, Tamsin Allen. Tamsin, you helped me before anyone knew who I was, or what Cambridge Analytica did. You made it possible for me to take on some of the most powerful people and companies in the world. When I had to travel to Washington, D.C., to testify before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, I learned three things about you. First, you are afraid of flying. Second, literally nothing else seems to faze you. Third, even after a transatlantic flight, bouts of jet lag, and sitting with me for more
than five intense hours of congressional hearings, you were still able to outdance Jennifer Lopez at the TIME 100 gala later that evening.

  There were so many brilliant lawyers who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to protect me and help make this story possible. Adam Kaufmann, Eric Lewis, Tara Plochocki, and my whole U.S. legal team at Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC—thank you for so bullishly taking on my case, effortlessly handling its multijurisdictional complexity, and helping me come through this process unscathed. Your counsel was imperative to keeping me calm and collected in such a chaotic time. In Britain, I was also supported by Tamsin’s brilliant colleagues at Bindmans LLP, including Mike Schwarz and Salima Budhani, and a small battalion of barristers from Matrix Chambers, including Gavin Millar QC, Clare Montgomery QC, Helen Mountfield QC, and Ben Silverstone and Jessica Simor QC. Martin Soames and Erica Henshilwood from Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP helped me greatly when I was still working with The Guardian anonymously, and their early advice laid the foundation for the rest of the story. You are all incredible lawyers, and I am here today, safe and sound, because of your work.

  THE WHISTLEBLOWERS

  Mark Gettleson and Shahmir Sanni, thank you for the deeply personal sacrifices you have both made and for sharing this crazy journey with me. You both experienced deeply unfair retaliation, but you nonetheless chose to blow the whistle. Mark, from the moment I met you all those years ago, there have been few men who have matched your eloquence, humor, empathy, and intelligence. Shahmir, thank you for standing by my side since we started on our whistleblowing journeys together, and for speaking truth to power. We’ve been through hell and back together and I’m so utterly proud to call you both my friends. And to the several other whistleblowers who wish to remain anonymous, thank you for helping. Even if the world does not know your contribution, you have made a huge difference.

  THE JOURNALISTS

  Carole Cadwalladr, thank you for believing me—and for believing in me. I knew from the moment I met you that you were one of the few people who could tell this story to the world in a way that makes people take note. You woke up the world and shook giants. I may have had the pink hair, but you were the one who wielded the pen. You kept going despite an unrelenting stream of abuse and threats from the alt-right, private intelligence firms, and Silicon Valley tech bros. You took me on for no other reason than a sincere dedication to the greater good and you deserve every accolade for your brilliant journalism.

  Sarah Donaldson and Emma Graham-Harrison, thank you for your pivotal role in telling this story to the world. Your work alongside Carole’s is largely why I can so confidently claim that I would not be where I am today without the women involved. The Guardian and The Observer are lucky to have you both. And of course, thank you, Paul Webster, John Mulholland, and Gillian Phillips, for steadfastly defending this story in the face of billionaires, tech giants, angry White House officials, intelligence agencies, and a cornucopia of almost daily legal threats. Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore, Gabriel Dance, Danny Hakim, David Kirkpatrick, and The New York Times, thank you for bringing this story to America in a way no one else could, and for the huge impact of your role in holding Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants to account. Job Rabkin, Ben de Pear, and Channel 4 News, thank you for daring to go undercover at huge risk, and for breaking this story to a television audience when others would not. Your footage showed the world the true depth of Cambridge Analytica’s nefarious operation in the firm’s own chilling words.

  THE PARLIAMENTARIANS

  Alistair Carmichael MP, thank you for your unwavering allyship and counsel over the years, for the late-night talks in your office, and for cultivating my palate for Scotch whisky during a stressful time. Your help before this story went public was invaluable. For nothing in return, you took risks and used your detailed knowledge of Parliament to help protect me and several other whistleblowers. This allowed evidence of significant public interest to be preserved and published. Damian Collins MP and the entire Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the British Parliament, thank you for being some of the loudest voices for holding Silicon Valley to account. Your nonpartisan collaboration on the inquiry into disinformation and “fake news” put the public interest first, and you all set a shining example of how politics should be done. By working together, your committee took on the giants of Silicon Valley and pulled together support for legislative action from around the world. And Damian, as a bleeding-heart liberal I never thought I would ever say this, but you showed me that—maybe—some Tories really can be cool.

  THE UNSUNG HEROES

  Thank you to my parents, Kevin and Joan, for your unconditional love, encouragement, and wisdom, and to my two sisters, Jaimie and Lauren, for dropping everything to help when things got chaotic, for letting me vent my stress, and for keeping my fridge stocked with food. And thank you to everyone else who helped uncover and tell this story. In particular, I would like to thank Lord Strasburger (for your discreet but immeasurable assistance behind the scenes); Peter Jukes (for all your encouragement and a brilliant launch for the story); Marc Silver (for your stunning film and hours-long inspiring conversations); Jess Search (for your sage advice and nurturing my queerness); Kyle Taylor (for your passionate campaigning); Elizabeth Denham, Michael McEvoy, and the entire U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office (for putting data rights on the map); Representative Adam Schiff and the staff of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee (for all the unseen work you do); Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS (for your brilliant investigative work); Ken Strasma (for sparking my interest in data); Dr. Keith Martin PC (for nurturing my independent spirit); Jeff Silvester (for mentoring my younger self, despite everything that happened later); Tom Brookes (for your support throughout); David Carroll and Paul-Olivier Dehaye (for your persistence in defending our data rights); Dr. Emma Briant (for uncovering critical evidence); Harry Davies, Ann Marlowe, and Wendy Siegelman (for your early investigative work); my former academic supervisor Dr. Carolyn Mair (for reviewing this book and teaching me so much about psychology, data, and culture); and Professor Shoshana Zuboff (whose work on surveillance capitalism helped me refine so many ideas). Perhaps most important, I want to recognize the hundreds of thousands of people who shared this story, called their representatives, marched in protests, held up placards, and sent me encouraging messages—there are so many people I have never even met who have passionately had my back throughout this journey.

  THIS BOOK

  And last, I would like to thank my two brilliant book collaborators, Lisa Dickey and Gareth Cook; my editor at Random House, Mark Warren; my literary agents at William Morris Endeavor, Jay Mandel and Jennifer Rudolph Walsh; Kelsey Kudak for fact-checking this book; and my entertainment lawyer, Jared Bloch. You all guided me through writing my first book, pushed me to put pen to paper, helped me distill the essence of this story, edited out my nonsense, and curbed my more discursive tendencies.

  ABOUT THE AUTHOR

  CHRISTOPHER WYLIE has been called “the millennials’ first great whistleblower” and “a pink-haired, nose-ringed oracle sent from the future.” He is known for his role in setting up—and then taking down—Cambridge Analytica. His revelations exposing the rampant misuse of data rocked Silicon Valley and led to some of the largest multinational investigations into data crime ever. Born in British Columbia, Canada, he studied law at the London School of Economics before moving into cultural data science and fashion trend forecasting. He lives in London, England.

  Twitter: @chrisinsilico

  Facebook: BANNED

  Instagram: BANNED

  What’s next on

  your reading list?

  Discover your next

  great read!

  Get personalized book picks and up-to-date news about this author.

  Sign up now.

  r />