{"id":93548,"date":"2018-04-17T09:58:40","date_gmt":"2018-04-17T14:58:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/2018\/04\/17\/intervention-ideas-to-ease-problems\/"},"modified":"2024-04-14T04:17:04","modified_gmt":"2024-04-14T09:17:04","slug":"intervention-ideas-to-ease-problems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2018\/04\/17\/intervention-ideas-to-ease-problems\/","title":{"rendered":"4.\u00a0Intervention ideas to ease problems"},"content":{"rendered":"

One current public debate centers on whether it is enough to expect people to simply evolve to avoid unhealthy tech habits or whether the only effective solution is for the tech business to evolve different approaches. Nir Eyal<\/a> advocates in his new book \u201cIndistractible\u201d that people can apply the concepts behind tech addiction \u2013 motivation, trigger and ability \u2013 to disconnect from unhealthy tech habits. Venture capitalist Roger McNamee<\/a> spoke for those who believe that isn\u2019t enough when he said, \u201cThe best way would be for founders of these companies to change their business model away from advertising. We have to eliminate the economic incentive to create addiction in the first place.\u201d Canadian journalist Eric Andrew-Gee summed up many concerns in an article titled \u201cYour smartphone is making you stupid, antisocial and unhealthy. So why can’t you put it down?<\/a>\u201d writing, \u201cBillions of people continue to be distracted and turned away from loved ones thanks to their smartphones. And untold billions of dollars wielded by some of the world\u2019s biggest companies are devoted to keeping it that way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Changes can be made to mitigate potential harms of digital life, but, depending on what those harms are, the responses will require a complex combination of public education, government activity and corporate agreement.\nJoseph Turow<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Respondents to this canvassing were asked what might be done to diminish any threats to individuals\u2019 well-being that are now emerging due to people\u2019s choices in creating digital systems and living digital lives. Whether they answered that digital life will be mostly helpful or mostly harmful, a majority of respondents said there are existing and foreseeable downsides that deserve attention. They discussed ways in which adjustments might be made to build a better future.<\/p>\n\n

[a]<\/p>\n\n\n

There are those who expect that interventions may have a bit of influence but not enough.<\/p>\n\n

Eric Allman<\/strong>, research engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, commented, \u201cI do think there exist actions that can (and will) be taken to mitigate problems, but I am not confident that those mitigations will be enough to solve the problems.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Joseph Turow<\/strong>, professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Annenberg School of Communication, wrote, \u201cChanges can be made to mitigate potential harms of digital life, but, depending on what those harms are, the responses will require a complex combination of public education, government activity and corporate agreement. Some of the harms \u2013 for example, those relating to issues of surveillance and privacy \u2013 unfortunately result from corporate and government activities in the political and business realms. Moreover, government and corporate actors often work together in these domains. Their vested interests will make it extremely difficult to address privacy and surveillance practices so that they match the public interest, but advocacy groups will keep trying and they may make some progress with increasing public awareness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

In the next few sections we share respondents\u2019 ideas about the potential interventions that might help bring a better future for people living digital lives. They are organized under these commonly occurring themes: reimagine systems; reinvent tech; regulate; recreate media literacy; recalibrate expectations; and fated to fail.<\/p>\n\n

Reimagine systems<\/u>: Societies can revise both tech arrangements and the structure of human institutions \u2013 including their composition, design, goals and processes<\/h4>\n\n

A large share of respondents said human systems tapping into human nature are to blame for many of the downsides of digital life. They argue that fixing those problems can make a difference for the better.<\/p>\n\n

Alejandro Pisanty<\/strong>, a professor at Universidad Nacional Aut\u00f3noma de M\u00e9xico and longtime leading participant in the activities of the Internet Society, wrote, \u201cAn open, public, civil, rational discussion of principles guiding systems design and implementation will become critical. All stakeholders must be availed a chance to participate meaningfully, in a timely and relevant manner. The most important intervention is to help, nudge or even force people to THINK, think before we click, think before we propagate news, think before we act. Some regulatory actions inviting information disclosure by corporations and government may be helpful but will fall on fallow ground if people are not awake and aware. Second: transparency to a reasonable extent will continue to be necessary, so the basis of decisions made by systems can be understood by people, and people and organizations can in turn test the systems and adjust their responses.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

We can\u2019t simply rely on technology to mitigate the harms of technology; rather, we must look at our educational systems, our political and economic systems \u2013 therein lie the solutions.\nJillian C. York<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Giacomo Mazzone<\/strong>, head of institutional relations at the European Broadcasting Union, shared a number of specific targets for improving systems, writing, \u201c1) New antitrust rules on a global scale need to be defined, and corporations that have reached far beyond their boundaries have to break up. The internet giants that immediately take over any innovation arriving into the market are becoming an obstacle to change and progress. 2) The open internet needs to be preserved at any price. If we have separate internet for the rich and the poor, the reasons we have granted special status and exceptional treatment to the internet revolution have gone. 3) Disruptive social impacts need to be addressed quickly \u2013 as the disruption process is identified and not afterward. Educational processes need to be redesigned, taking into account the notion of digital citizenship and the need for lifelong learning processes. 4) A brand new \u2018social contract\u2019 should be defined and signed between ruling classes, business community, citizens; the notions of salaries, jobs, pensions and social security need to be redesigned from scratch.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Anita Salem<\/strong>, a human systems researcher based in North America, commented, \u201cPotential risks can be mitigated by reframing the role of technology and reducing the power of corporations. Technology needs to focus on the whole system, minimize unintended consequences and support big lives rather than big corporations. In addition to marketability, technology should be valued by how well it strengthens human relationships, preserves our planet, bridges inequalities and provides a livable wage, gives voice to the marginalized, develops creativity, supports mental and physical health, and increases opportunities for leading a meaningful life. This however, requires a cataclysmic shift in our economic system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Jillian C. York<\/strong>, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, \u201cInterventions to mitigate the harms of digital life are possible, but they require a commitment to holistic solutions. We can\u2019t simply rely on technology to mitigate the harms of technology; rather, we must look at our educational systems, our political and economic systems \u2013 therein lie the solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

An anonymous<\/strong> retired consultant and writer<\/strong> said, \u201cThe digital environment enables platforms of near costless coordination \u2013 the benefits of which will require a \u2018re-imagining\u2019 of work and society in order the harness these benefits. Thus, while every technology can be weaponized and incumbent rent-seekers will fight to remove protections and capture regulation for their own profiteering, the real power of the digital environment will require new forms of institutional innovation, new institutional frameworks and public infrastructures and more.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Sy Taffel<\/strong>, senior lecturer in media studies at Massey University, wrote, \u201cMoving away from the corporate model of platform capitalism towards commons and public alternatives that are driven by a desire to build a more equitable and fair society rather than profiteering from the commodification of communication and systematic dataveillance would be a good start at addressing the systemic issues that currently exist. There are a huge number of areas where legislative activity to curb the behaviour of tech corporations can help, and the European Union has recently taken a lead in doing this in numerous cases, ranging from prohibiting the use of toxic substances in digital devices to how personal data can be used. The social harm that results from tech corporations\u2019 pervasive tax avoidance cannot be overstated either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

David J. Krieger<\/strong>, director of the Institute for Communication & Leadership located in Lucerne, Switzerland, observed, \u201cGenerally society and its organizations should proactively move away from the established solutions to problems as they were defined in the industrial age and try innovative forms of networking, sharing and management of information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Darlene Erhardt<\/strong>, senior information analyst at the University of Rochester, commented, \u201cWe certainly can create awesome, cool tech toys but we also need to pay closer attention to the moral\/ethical\/societal implications, benefits and effects. If that\u2019s not at the very core, the foundation, then the cool new stuff that gets created has a greater likelihood of being used for negative things.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Jodi Dean<\/strong>, a professor of political science said, \u201cInternet giants (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) can be collectivized, turned into public utilities so that capitalist dynamics don\u2019t guide the way they develop.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

An anonymous respondent<\/strong> said, \u201cAn increasing focus on the role of the Big-Five tech companies will shape how they behave in the years to come. With increased pressure, these companies will address their responsibility for the content on their platforms along with other critical issues such as privacy, access and the potentially addictive nature of product design.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Mike Silber<\/strong>, general counsel at Liquid Telecom South Africa, wrote, \u201cWe need partnerships to deal with content issues. No one entity can accept responsibility; there needs to be a form of co-regulation between content creators, content users, platforms and governments to ensure that the freedom and openness allowed by digitalisation is preserved, while malicious actions can be mitigated. \u2026 We run the risk of perpetuating digital echo chambers where independent thought will gradually disappear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Some said that the teams of technologists who are creating the products of digital life lack the appropriate diversity, and that the people constructing the ways of knowing and accessing knowledge and human connection should represent all of humanity.<\/p>\n\n

Brenda M. Michelson<\/strong>, an executive-level technology architect based in North America, commented, \u201cWe need to improve how we build and introduce digital products, services, information and overall pervasiveness. On building, we need to diversify the teams creating our digital future. 1) These future builders must reflect society in terms of race, gender, age, education, economic status and so on. 2) As digital is integrative \u2013 technology, data, arts, humanities, society, ethics, economics, science, communication \u2013 the teams must be composed of individuals from across professions and backgrounds, including artists, scientists, systems thinkers and social advocates. On introduction, we need \u2013 desperately \u2013 to build information literacy and critical-thinking skills across the population and improve curation tools without impinging on free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

An anonymous<\/strong> futurist<\/strong> commented, \u201cAwareness is changing and non-tech expertise is being integrated into the planning of technology being developed. There will still be unintended side effects, but with diverse perspectives from the start we have a better chance of minimizing \u2013 and even foreseeing \u2013 the potential ill effects and working toward better solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Digital life is built from code-based technologies that are protected as intellectual property and thus their structures are generally not made public. This is seen as a danger by some who say there should be algorithmic transparency and openness to how and why tech tools are built as they are.<\/p>\n\n

[artificial intelligence systems]<\/p>\n\n\n

Peter and Trudy Johnson-Lenz<\/strong>, principals of Pathfinding Smarter Futures, wrote, \u201cScientists need to find ways of listening to and valuing more diverse forms of public knowledge and social intelligence. Only by opening up innovation processes at an early stage can we ensure that science contributes to the common good. Debates about risk are important. But the public also wants answers to the more fundamental questions at stake in any new technology: Who owns it? Who benefits from it? To what purposes will it be directed? (See \u2018See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream<\/a>\u2019 by James Wilsdon and Rebecca Willis.) Those advocating redesign and different ways of using these technologies must be given a platform to share their thinking so new products and services can be developed, tested and adopted. Ultimately, we need to have more \u2018see-through science,\u2019 to involve the public upstream in the development process to make sure science and technology contributes to the common good.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Some suggested that tech design can be mindfully built to lift individuals\u2019 experiences to be more beneficial to well-being just as easily as it can be designed to be addictive.<\/p>\n\n

Brad Templeton<\/strong>, software architect, civil rights advocate, entrepreneur, internet pioneer and chair emeritus for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote, \u201cThe key action is to identify when things are not working well, do research, and then work to fix it in the design of the next generation of products. First generations will continue to tend to have unintended consequences. You can\u2019t have innovation without that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

The initial hurdle in all such challenges will be to overcome technological determinism. This is the modern-day religion of acquiescence that stifles reason, choice and freedom.\nMarc Rotenberg<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Jerry Michalski<\/strong>, founder of the Relationship Economy eXpedition, said, \u201cUser-experience (UX) design dictates most of what we do. Place a big source of addictive content in the focus of attention and most people will slip into that trap. If our UX designers wise up, they can just as easily design wellness, mindfulness, self-control and other features into the devices we use. It\u2019s possible, but the business models that fuel these companies make such steps unlikely.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Micah Altman<\/strong>, director of research and head scientist for the program on information science at MIT, said, \u201cInformation technology is often disruptive and far faster than the evolution of markets, norms and law. This increases the uncertainty of predicting the effects of technological choices but doesn\u2019t render such predictions useless, nor prevent us from observing these effects and reacting to them. \u2026 We know enough to effectively design substantial elements of privacy, security, individual control, explainability and audibility into technical systems if we choose to do so. How will specific technology choices affect individuals and society? We do not always know the answers to technology questions in advance. But we can choose how to design into our systems now, the ability for society and individuals to ask these questions and receive meaningful answers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Salvatore Iaconesi<\/strong>, an entrepreneur and business leader based in Europe, said, \u201cBring in arts and design to work not only on providing information and skills, but also to work on the dynamics of desire, imagination and emotion, which are the real behavior-changers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Some respondents aren\u2019t so sure that progress in the ethical design and use of technology can overcome the influence of base human nature. Frank Kaufmann<\/strong>, a scholar, educator, innovator and activist based in North America, commented, \u201cPeople are constantly improving, so technology naturally supports that. Unfortunately our race is blocked from true progress until people embrace the secret to dissolving and removing dominating self-interest. Tragically technology exacerbates that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

The overarching sentiment among these respondents is that people have to take action, not simply step back and let an avalanche of technology overwhelm human reason.<\/p>\n\n

Marc Rotenberg<\/strong>, director of a major digital civil rights organization, wrote, \u201cThe initial hurdle in all such challenges will be to overcome technological determinism. This is the modern-day religion of acquiescence that stifles reason, choice and freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

An anonymous respondent<\/strong> commented, \u201cWe are ruled by a dysfunctional worldview that values profit over people; it skews what the internet does and what it can do. The internet has the power to be much more positive in people\u2019s lives but that requires a different political framework.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

A sampling of additional comments about the \u201creimagine systems\u201d theme from anonymous respondents<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n