Liberal Answers to Digitalization

Workshop Report

Digital technologies are shaping every sphere of our lives. They influence the way we commu­nicate and learn. They also have an essential impact on how we work, consume and gather infor­mation. Even the way we love and think is effected by digital technologies. They redefine the relationship between man and machine and open up unforeseen possi­bil­ities for better or worse. The corona pandemic has further accel­erated these developments.

Digital­ization repre­sents one of the major challenges of our time. Hence, it is crucial to obtain a profound under­standing of the digital trans­for­mation in order to be able to design and steer it.

Rethinking Liber­alism

In the context of our project “Rethinking Liber­alism”, the Center for Liberal Modernity is discussing the issue:

How can liber­alism be renewed?

Over the last years, there has been much critique on liber­alism – especially under the label of “neolib­er­alism” — and its pitfalls, however not so much work on its contem­porary renewal. This is what this project aims at: Renewing liber­alism by discussing liberal answers to the great challenges of our time. There are indeed many: climate change, global migration, social inequality, the rise of author­i­tarian powers as well as digital­ization. They all demand new ideas, perspec­tives and answers. These great challenges often feed author­i­tarian thinking and populist movements, which makes the need for liberal answers even more urgent. Our project “Rethinking Liber­alism” connects liberal thinkers from different countries, various political families and academic backgrounds. It aims at creating a diverse network of liberal thinkers and political actors.

The internet between utopia and dystopia

In its early stages, the internet often was hailed as an utopia of freedom and direct democracy. Indeed, it played a crucial role in democ­ratic uprisings like the Arab spring, and still offers an unprece­dented oppor­tunity of infor­mation, exchange and networking. In contrast to these visionary hopes, in recent years the dystopian potential of author­i­tarian control and manip­u­lation, of an economy in which human individuals become redundant and a society driven by anonymous algorithms pushed into the foreground.

In our workshop, we discussed the following aspects of digitalization:

• the role of digital platforms
• the role of digital technologies in the new systemic conflict with author­i­tarian regimes
• the ethics of algorithms.

Platforms are playing a defining role in the economy and our everyday life

Platforms play an increasing role in our lives. We commu­nicate via WhatsApp or Telegram, stay in touch via Facebook and get infor­mation on twitter. Our access to digital infor­mation is widely struc­tured by the google search algorithm and its hidden biases. Besides those well-known examples, there is an increasing number of platforms in the areas of commu­ni­cation, mobility, shopping, health and education. Those platforms can be seen as critical infra­struc­tures, as Christoph Busch, professor at university of Osnabrueck, argues:

Platforms such as Amazon, Google and Facebook, but also digital start-ups that are later bought up by the large digital conglom­erates, are extending their reach into areas of life where social partic­i­pation, democracy and the provision of essential services to citizens are at stake.[1]

Some digital infra­struc­tures provide services of basic interest and therefore need specific regulation. They can be seen as a kind of hybrid insti­tu­tions: private businesses offering essential public services. This is not a totally new phenomenon, if you think of the role of private energy‑, water- and health care – companies. Thus, the discussion falls short it don’t take into account the basic function provided by some of these platforms in terms of infor­mation, commu­ni­cation and struc­turing the political public.

Therefore, the regulation of platforms is not only a matter of anti-trust-policy, but also a matter of infra­structure politics. Busch states:

It is probably no exagger­ation to say that large digital platforms have a certain systemic relevance for the functioning of our digital society.[2]

He opts for a new law on digital infra­struc­tures. This however does not indicate that we need state-owned platforms for all kind of purposes. The state should not presume to act as a better entrepreneur.

But infra­structure regulation, argues Busch, is an essential respon­si­bility of the state (and  – even better – for the European Union). Important guide­lines for such new digital infra­structure — laws preserve:

• fair access to digital services for everybody
• regula­tions on the use of data
• restric­tions on person­alized prices, and
• the oblig­ation to safeguard funda­mental basic rights

In the discussion, several questions were posed:

Are platforms free markets or algorith­mi­sized command and control structures? 

Can the national state enforce effective regulation? 

Whom do we trust (more): the state or privately owned companies? 

Has the risk scheme changed: from states to private companies? 

The partic­i­pants agreed that the regulation of platforms is essen­tially for the future functioning of our democ­racies as they provide basic public services and act as gate keepers to the sphere of digital infor­mation, commu­ni­cation and commerce.

Digital systemic compe­tition with China

Is there such a thing as a digital systemic compe­tition? If yes, at full range only with China, responded Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute. China marks the only author­i­tarian country which is able to compete on the full scale of digital technologies, compa­rable only with the US. China combines a bunch of advanced tech companies with global outreach, a huge amount of data that can be used by government and commercial companies, and lax regulation combined with no data protection rights for users. Also in this respect, China widely surpasses Russia which has been able to create some influ­ential digital platforms and media outlets with wide distri­b­ution in the Russian-speaking world.

Liberal democ­racies have to defend themselves, Benner insisted. For him, digital decou­pling is the right path to do so. This propoal leads to highly disputed issues: Should western tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple or Twitter stay in the Chinese market and give security author­ities access to the data of their customers? Should they follow the demands of the Chinese government and ban certain content, e.g. on Taiwan or Hongkong?  Or should they restrain from author­i­tarian countries, stick to basic freedoms, letting the markets of those regimes up for grabs for non-western companies? Should we conversely ban Chinese IT-companies like Huawei from Western markets?

While Western big tech companies answer differ­ently to these questions, Benner made clear that he opts for a clear cut decou­pling, triggering a contro­versial discussion among the workshop partic­i­pants. Would decou­pling finally increase the risk of war? Which infor­mation- and commu­ni­cation channels are left for critical minds in China? How can the spirit of liberal democracy survive and flourish in those countries if we erect a digital wall between “them” and “us”?

Algorithms and artificial intelligence

“F*ck the algorithm!” This slogan was used by schoolkids in the UK after their grades recently were extrap­o­lated and deter­mined by computer programs – according to the average grades in their neigh­borhood, not their actual perfor­mance. This kind of “predictive decision making” is also used by the police as well as for appli­cation processes.

This example demon­strates, that algorithms already have a huge impact on our life. They influence our profes­sional oppor­tu­nities, consumer choices and even our worldview. They may be more coherent and efficient in decision making processes, but biases inherent in programs have a large effect on people – eventually even larger than individual decisions. The problem with those socio-techno­logical systems: They deeply affect peoples lives, but for most users they look like a “black box”: highly complex and intrans­parent at the same time.

Carla Hustedt, director of the new “Centre for Digital Society“of the Mercator Foundation, made clear that there is no need for new basic rights with regard to digital products, but already existing rights need to be enforced. Hustedt also made clear that moral questions should be publicly debated and polit­i­cally decided. We should not leave them to tech companies. AI ethics (“ethixs of digital­ization”) can even become a compet­itive advantage, if imple­mented rightly. In her opinion, knowledge of how algorithms work must be dissem­i­nated more widely, especially among elites involved in decision making processes. Expert commu­nities and oversight bodies that under­stand the highly complex issues should become more involved in political decision making.

Liberal answers to digital­ization – Provi­sional conclusions

The workshop provided a lot of insight and food for thought on complex issues. In historic terms, we are still in the early stages of exploring the new digital world arising, and in the process of defining ethical standards and democ­ratic rules to make it work for the benefit of the public good. We are facing a growing tension between the accel­erated speed of techno­logical innovation – and here we are talking about funda­men­tally new technologies – and the ponderous pace of public under­standing and political decision making, creating a legal-political framework for the digital age.

Similar to climate change, digiti­zation is a test of the ability of liberal democ­racies to control the dynamics unleashed by technology-driven modern societies. How to come to terms with a technos­phere that can be seen as a kind of autonomous, self-refer­ential and self-repro­ducing system? This question is excep­tionally urgent with the devel­opment of self-learning technical systems that are becoming ever more complex and sophis­ti­cated. Ultimately, all of the discussed aspects rise the question who is in the driver’s seat of ground breaking technologies: the digital elite, autonomous AI-systems, or will society be able to keep a tradition of informed public discourse and democ­ratic decision making? This question has to be answered in the upcoming years.

[1] Busch, Christoph: Regulation of Digital Platforms as Infra­struc­tures for Services of General Interest. Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, 2021, p. 20

[2] Busch 2021: p. 15

Ralf Fücks & Rainald Manthe