Brave New World
An Initiative by
The coronavirus pandemic has seen technology-enabled centralised control bleed into ever greater parts of our lives. But centralisation of power almost always spells disaster for humanity. Whether led by companies or governments, centralisation initiatives always have a certain appealing logic when examined within a microcosm. But taking a wider view, it becomes clear there are good reasons to look elsewhere for solutions to our challenges. We need nothing short of a new paradigm: digital liberal democracy.
The pandemic has foregrounded challenges not only in healthcare but across the political, economic and social spheres. Let’s focus on two challenges specific to the technology sector.
One: we are in the midst of a worsening infodemic. Rising levels of social anxiety caused by the pandemic have seen people use social media networks to share information on everything from ways to prevent infection to vaccines to economic support measures, and of course speculation on the origins of the virus. While some of the information shared is of benefit to others, much is inaccurate or untrue, including fake news and rumours. People are increasingly concerned about the spread of misinformation that jeopardises public safety. The way that social networks tailor what users view to suit their individual preferences has made it easy for an echo chamber effect to take hold, where those who encounter false information repeatedly may feel their own views shift to match the group, and may even become radicalised.
Responding to these concerns, social media platform services have started to implement their own rules about posting information. While these businesses are acting in response to user complaints, restrictions introduced by private enterprises without community consultation run the risk of obstructing the freedom of expression, which is a basic human right.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is now frequently used to censor the vast amounts of information sent out on the internet, but in some cases the AI’s decision to restrict certain content is inexplicable. Traditionally, businesses have needed a sound reason to constrain expression, but AI censorship makes those reasons very difficult to identify.
While the internet is said to be a distributed system, the reality is that some platform functions are increasingly falling under centralised control, threatening the democratic operation of technology.
Two, a problem that particularly troubles Japan: the decentralisation of personal information. Personal data such as income, bank account details, essential worker status and underlying medical conditions is essential in determining whether someone is eligible for economic assistance or their priority status for vaccination. Central and local governments have not managed to use this information effectively, leading to unnecessary delays in decisions about support packages and vaccination programs, when speed is of the essence.
The root of the problem is that people’s personal information exists only on the databases of the administrative institutions that collected it. Japan’s national ID system was designed to integrate this information, but it is failing to function as hoped. The public has a deep-seated distrust of the state or companies using technology to centralise control of personal information. A number of high-profile cybersecurity attacks in recent years have only heightened concerns. We need a new paradigm for how we approach storing and using personal data and how we verify identity to realise the benefits of speed and convenience without sacrificing safety and privacy.
What both these challenges suggest is that a future in which all information and comment is subject to technology-based centralised control will not end well for humanity. Where the state is the controlling entity, we will find ourselves with what political theorist Sebastian Heilmann describes as ‘digital Leninism’. Control by companies? Professor Shoshana Zuboff’s surveillance capitalism. Give control to AI, and we have Terminator’s Skynet. Hardly ideal futures!
What we should be aiming for, I believe, is digital liberal democracy. This would mean using technology to realise control that is simultaneously centralised and distributed, so that even if a platform is centralised across the globe, its operation is distributed locally.
From my experience in corporate management, it makes sense to make local decisions on about 70 to 80 per cent of matters. I would like to see local businesses too getting in on the platform game, because diversity will be the key to mitigating the harmful effects of centralisation.
Guidelines and rules will be needed to ensure that the technology companies supplying platforms and cloud-based systems engage in sound and distributed service operation, and that in turn will require public–private partnerships. The local decisions can be handled at the national level, but the 20 to 30 per cent of global decisions will require international collaboration. Countries that share the same democratic values could work together to create a set of public–private rules that govern them all.
Like centralisation and distribution, freedom of speech and public welfare need to be achieved simultaneously as well. In other words, we need to preserve plurality of speech while also ensuring that we uphold principles of social inclusion and respect. The key will lie in sharing values during the process of sharing information.
Most nations of the Indo-Pacific hold dear the values of freedom and democracy while maintaining religious and ethnic diversity. My company is committed to playing a role in public–private partnerships in the region. We will continue to work with those who share our values, so together we can make a cleverer, fairer and more democratic world.
