The societal dangers of concentrated data power are well documented. Studies have linked social media platforms to mental health crises, child exploitation, cyberbullying, body image issues, polarization, social division and the spread of misinformation. Even more alarming is the tangible impact of digital platforms promoting hate, bigotry and vitriolic content, which often translates to real-world consequences. Yet, unlike FOIA’s ability to hold governments accountable, there is no equivalent mechanism to compel transparency from tech companies. Though initiatives such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have advanced individual privacy rights, they fall short of addressing the broader needs.
Limited tools to provide a glimpse into the inner workings of tech companies, such as application programming interfaces (APIs), once allowed researchers to study the impacts of these platforms. But in recent years, many of these access points have been shut down, leaving researchers and the public more broadly in a state of information blindness: We don’t know what we don’t know.
Congressional hearings have offered occasional insights into the operations of tech companies, but these are insufficient. Elected officials, usually lacking deep technical expertise, struggle to ask nuanced questions necessary for meaningful oversight. Executives provide rehearsed responses that reveal little. Without a structured mechanism for systematic access to Big Tech’s data, the public remains at a disadvantage.
It is time to create a FOIA-like system for Big Tech. Such a framework could require tech companies to disclose data critical for public oversight, including information on algorithmic decision-making, data collection practices and content moderation policies. Like the current FOIA system, platform companies would be required to proactively publish certain categories of information online, including frequently requested records. Researchers, journalists and policymakers could submit requests that align with predefined public-interest categories, and if the company fails to comply with a request, a lawsuit could be filed to compel the release of the information.
Currently, public companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are required to disclose financial and operating information to the Securities and Exchange Commission and their shareholders but are not required to disclose anything close to the depth and breadth of a FOIA system. Private companies including X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok face even fewer disclosure requirements; they aren’t obligated to release any financial or operating statements. Short of an unprecedented congressional hearing with razor-sharp, apolitical questioning, or information acquired from a subpoena or a whistleblower, the public isn’t going to get what it needs from these tech companies.
Mandating regular and systematic disclosures through a FOIA-like process would change this dynamic. It would empower independent research, informed policymaking and public accountability. And, crucially, it could operate outside the political fray, ensuring that transparency is not subject to the shifting priorities of individual lawmakers or administrations. Like FOIA, this system would make Big Tech more transparent so the public could more easily identify problems across social media platforms and put pressure on the companies to address them.
Data is power, and without transparency, that power remains unchecked. It’s time to establish a new standard of accountability for Big Tech — one that aligns with the scale of influence these companies have over our lives. Drafting a law and getting it through a deeply polarized Congress is no small feat. It will demand political will, indisputable evidence of societal harms and an unwavering commitment to democratic principles. Despite the enormity of this challenge, inaction is not an option. The very foundation of our democracy — an informed citizenry — depends on it.
News & Events
We need a Freedom of Information Act for Big Tech
Laura Manley, Executive Director
This essay was originally published in The Washington Post on January 14, 2025.
For much of U.S. history, the federal government was the ultimate authority on and custodian of society’s most important information. From census data to national security records, it was the unchallenged overseer of facts on matters critical to public life. But increasing government secrecy during the Cold War raised concerns about a lack of transparency and accountability, and in 1955 a law was proposed that would grant the public the right to access federal records: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
After years of resistance from many politicians and almost all government agencies, FOIA was signed into law in 1966. This landmark legislation, repeatedly amended, has served two essential purposes: enabling citizens to investigate issues of societal and personal interest and promoting oversight of those in power.
The advent of the internet, however, transformed the information landscape. FOIA, while still operational, became less central for overall transparency as the government adopted open data policies, including a 2013 executive order that made open and machine-readable data the new default for government information. Simultaneously, the locus of power over data began to shift — from public institutions to private tech companies.
Today, tech giants have supplanted governments as the primary custodians of critical data, both in the United States and around the world. They wield unprecedented influence over society through the massive troves of information they collect, analyze and monetize. Unlike democratic governments, they are not elected, nor do they operate under principles of civic responsibility, transparency or accountability. Their power is driven by profit motives, not public service.
The consequences are far-reaching. Last Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that his company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, would cease its fact-checking efforts and increase the promotion of political content on its platforms. “Fact-checkers have just been too politically biased,” he said in a video. With that peremptory speech, Zuckerberg changed what billions of users of Instagram, Facebook and other Meta platforms will see and read, demonstrating the unchecked influence tech giants have over information dissemination.
The societal dangers of concentrated data power are well documented. Studies have linked social media platforms to mental health crises, child exploitation, cyberbullying, body image issues, polarization, social division and the spread of misinformation. Even more alarming is the tangible impact of digital platforms promoting hate, bigotry and vitriolic content, which often translates to real-world consequences. Yet, unlike FOIA’s ability to hold governments accountable, there is no equivalent mechanism to compel transparency from tech companies. Though initiatives such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have advanced individual privacy rights, they fall short of addressing the broader needs.
Limited tools to provide a glimpse into the inner workings of tech companies, such as application programming interfaces (APIs), once allowed researchers to study the impacts of these platforms. But in recent years, many of these access points have been shut down, leaving researchers and the public more broadly in a state of information blindness: We don’t know what we don’t know.
Congressional hearings have offered occasional insights into the operations of tech companies, but these are insufficient. Elected officials, usually lacking deep technical expertise, struggle to ask nuanced questions necessary for meaningful oversight. Executives provide rehearsed responses that reveal little. Without a structured mechanism for systematic access to Big Tech’s data, the public remains at a disadvantage.
It is time to create a FOIA-like system for Big Tech. Such a framework could require tech companies to disclose data critical for public oversight, including information on algorithmic decision-making, data collection practices and content moderation policies. Like the current FOIA system, platform companies would be required to proactively publish certain categories of information online, including frequently requested records. Researchers, journalists and policymakers could submit requests that align with predefined public-interest categories, and if the company fails to comply with a request, a lawsuit could be filed to compel the release of the information.
Currently, public companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are required to disclose financial and operating information to the Securities and Exchange Commission and their shareholders but are not required to disclose anything close to the depth and breadth of a FOIA system. Private companies including X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok face even fewer disclosure requirements; they aren’t obligated to release any financial or operating statements. Short of an unprecedented congressional hearing with razor-sharp, apolitical questioning, or information acquired from a subpoena or a whistleblower, the public isn’t going to get what it needs from these tech companies.
Mandating regular and systematic disclosures through a FOIA-like process would change this dynamic. It would empower independent research, informed policymaking and public accountability. And, crucially, it could operate outside the political fray, ensuring that transparency is not subject to the shifting priorities of individual lawmakers or administrations. Like FOIA, this system would make Big Tech more transparent so the public could more easily identify problems across social media platforms and put pressure on the companies to address them.
Data is power, and without transparency, that power remains unchecked. It’s time to establish a new standard of accountability for Big Tech — one that aligns with the scale of influence these companies have over our lives. Drafting a law and getting it through a deeply polarized Congress is no small feat. It will demand political will, indisputable evidence of societal harms and an unwavering commitment to democratic principles. Despite the enormity of this challenge, inaction is not an option. The very foundation of our democracy — an informed citizenry — depends on it.