Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for inviting me to this very important congress because Blockchain is sector of technological, digital, technological development and I would like to say some words in general about the link between the democracy and digital technology.
In a past not so far ago, say 25 years ago, if someone wanted to make up your own opinion about a topic whether it was in international relations or science, domestic politics, economy or any other topic, life looked simple. Depending on the topic and the country you were interested in, you had authoritative newspapers and authoritative journalists who were considered as opinion makers. Therefore, it was almost easy to gain quickly a good understanding of even complicated issues, or at least to reach a feeling of having a good understanding.
It was on those grounds that the public sphere was positioning itself and that a public opinion was shaped first at a national level. Frequently, it even developed at an international level. The international community was showing sometimes simultaneous reactions.
Nevertheless, I’d like to present my personal analysis on a few changes I have observed in the process of shaping the public opinion in this digital age.
Why am I speaking about public opinion and digital technology? Because the basis of the democracy is the opinion of the citizen and in general the public opinion in a country. Public opinion also on the international and European level. Democracy is based on the public opinion and you know that the digital technology is influencing in a specific way, and we should deal with that, we should analyse this specific way, how the digital technology is influencing the public opinion, and that means how digital technology is influencing the democracy and the decisions that are democratically taken.
As I mentioned, a few decades ago, classically there were well established opinion leaders and a few intermediates. The press was showing a certain hierarchy among journalists more or less based on a criterion of quality. These established opinion leaders were influencing the political agenda in their country by defining somehow what had to be considered as important by the society.
And what is not so important. It is the task of journalists – I am simplifying a little bit – of the journalists, of the quality press to hierarchise the public questions which then afterwards was dealt by democratic institutions.
Done properly and consequently, it was not rare that this work led to political and legislative decision making by a Parliament. Presenting an issue under various aspects, the press had a kind of a filtration role.
Nowadays, the political agenda comes a different way. The classical actors are still in place, but some features are new.
The individuals are able to directly influence the definition of the political agenda through the social media. It doesn’t go, say, mathematically but some issues appear on the agenda at an incredible pace.
It has become easier to influence the content of the political agenda because influencing individual persons is more simple.
And this is a difference between situation 25 years ago and the situation now. And this also is a consequence of the using of the digital technology in the society and, of course, you are here rather in the technical way to solve some technical or different technical issues, but the society should also think what are the consequences and to deal with the consequences in a political and legal way.
Social medias like Facebook live on the number of their affiliated clients and the refined analysis of all the information they have about each of them. There is an individualisation of people’s reactions which can be a precise instrument to influence their behaviour.
This phenomenon of continuously examining individuals’ behaviour is now common practice and is a type of a permanent surveillance. It is based on a simple principle.
Say we have a stimulus S1 which triggers always a given reaction R1. You need focussing on a individual whose timeline is personifying him. The more precise, the more personified.
Let’s recall how Cambridge Analytica has been able to exploit this type of information about undecided voters in the swing states during the last US Presidential elections. It probably made a decisive difference in the end results of these elections.
To illustrate a further feature, I’d like to mention a famous case about a century ago. The old Rockfeller had a fragile health. In order not to upset him when reading the news, a special edition of the “New York Times” was read to him – a special edition composed solely of good news. He was not informed in this newspaper that, for example, the First World War was already there.
It is a natural human behaviour to search for information in one’s own bubble. Thirty years ago or before we had clearly leftist and rightist newspapers. Every reader was choosing his own information source according to his taste and opinions. Still, in those days, it was not a hidden factor. One knew about the possible tendentious aspects of the press on the market.
The phenomenon has changed now. To make a google search is to accept unclear criteria of presenting the information. The sequence of appearance of references is depending on aspects unknown to the consumer. It is tendentious – biased - without a possibility of determining why.
Often, bias can be more deliberate. For example, a simple and very usual explanation is the mere fact that someone has paid for the information to be placed on the top of a list when certain key words are typed. These bias are not without a risk for the consumers or even for the society, also for the politics. It is an expression of the Western capitalism system – the market can clearly interfere in politics in that way.
Exactly this was reproached to big social media. FB, for example, is defining criteria about what can be or not be allowed. It is very much in line with puritanism when it comes to naked pictures. But hate speech and radical political accounts haven’t found such a strict opposition.
In any case, communication on social medias as any communication is by essence an intent to get some influence. Any peoples’ conversation is based on the idea that I want to influence someone by saying my truth. And I am doing here also the same. On social medias, my personal influence gets highly diluted among hundreds of other influences which, in turn, may be precisely designed for specific individuals. With time it becomes harder to avoid it and easier to get influenced.
This continuous shift of perception slowly creates a distorted world perception – in German die Weltanschauung – all past certainties may fade into a mix of approximated views or even perverted interpretations of the functioning of the world.
At the end of the day, when nothing is clear in politics and everything is being manipulated, we can fear a weakening of democracy.
In this sense, the use of technology can even go further. Billions have been invested in Artificial Intelligence and, especially, in facial recognition in public places. Everybody may be under constant surveillance. Citizens’ behaviour is scrutinised and being assessed on a kind of scale. For example, on this basis, it is technically possible to create a system of social ranking. In some authoritarian countries is already in place or should be developed so that mainstream behaviour of the citizens is awarded but the negative consequences you can feel when you are not behaving like the mainstream is organised and this is a dream of each authoritarian regime – to mainstream the people to avoid individual behaviour which can be dangerous or different from the mainstream.
Some authors are talking about ‘surveillance capitalism’. Each citizen is to be observed, and then assessed. Citizens are being categorised. It is a challenge to citizen’s inner freedom. Think of the American dream – freedom is giving the capacity to realize your dreams. The more you do, the more you achieve. Under a constant surveillance requiring adaptation to mainstream rules, citizens are being submitted to a constant control. It is a classic case of conditioning – you get a reward if you behave well, but you get punished if not.
And this can also have influence on the progress of the society. Progress takes place mostly when someone does something that is not in accordance with mainstream behaviour. Changes came always from minorities. And this is also now in question – whether the mainstreaming of the people through social medias, especially through constant surveillance, can also in a certain way influence the progress of the society in a specific way.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I think we have here, also in this congress and in other congresses like this, posed the question, ‘What digital technology can do?’ But I think this question should be completed with another question, ‘What digital technology should do, and what can do?’ It is a technical issue and you are the specialists for that, and you have discussed all this, but what the digital technology should do – it is a political and also a legal issue. And this is not only for the specialist of IT sphere, but for the whole society, for democratic politics, to decide, to speak about, discuss – what the digital technology should do. And this is, I think, after these changes what I mentioned, rather the awareness of the politics and awareness of the society to this issue – what the digital technologies should do is raised and I think in the next years we will have a discussion, especially on these issues. For example, artificial intelligence. Certainly, we would welcome the artificial intelligence, for example, in the field of medicine, if with the help of artificial intelligence, it would be possible to recognise the cancer in an early stage already. But would we also welcome general face recognition in all places, everywhere. Would we also welcome the tracking of our movement, physical movement, of our location. I think this is a political issue, a legal issue, it is ethical issue.
If we are speaking about digital technology, then we agree all that the digital technology is changing the world. But, also, the society should be prepared for these changes and should assess whether these changes are welcome, for example, face recognition, as I said already, and general surveillance. And also I am lawyer, and also the legal science should go and find new ways how to deal with that, because like in the technic, also the legal system should be developed in a way so that the legal system remain effective and can solve the problems of the society. For example, in the legal congresses like this congress, is a new issue is also discussed. For example, I said already that the source of big data is the constant monitoring of the behaviour of the people, of each individual, and then, after that, each individual is profiled, so that you can deal with the profile in a certain way to influence his behaviour. And then, we should discuss also in legal terms whether the right to privacy should be designed in a more precise way so that we would have two specific rights – the right to monitor another person, and the right not to be monitored by other as a part of privacy – the right not to be monitored. For example, by using of internet. I think these issues are discussed now also in legal circles. Also, you can see that the politics, especially the law, are developing also further in order not to fall behind the technical development.
I will conclude also, because it is here the Blockchain congress, with legal improvement or absolute legal innovation, I would say, the Lichtenstein Blockchain Act which developed also theoretical, new approaches in legal system, like new approaches in the digital technology or in the technology as such so that Blockchain, which was not regulated and also the practical use of the Blockchain was not able under the current legal system, under the classical legal system. And it is a very interesting innovation, legal innovation, and I know that also other countries are preparing such laws. Lichtenstein is a very small country, but it is member state of the European Economic Association. And the Lichtenstein legal system, also this new Blockchain law, can have certain repercussions, consequences, and I would say positive consequences to the European Union legal system. But, especially in the way that the other member states of the European Union would be encouraged also to introduce such kind of laws concerning Blockchain. I will not explain further this very interesting innovation in legal system, but I would also conclude and come to the end with a constatation that the technical development of digital technology is going very fast and we are in the situation now that also the political and legal development should go at least in the same way, at least so fast that we can deal with a new technical development in a way which fits the expectations of the society.
Thank you very much!
