The digital economy benefits the 1%. Here’s how to change that.
A pragmatic approach to fixing an imbalanced system.
RAMESH SRINIVASAN: A digital economy and world that work for the 99 percent are one where, is one where technologies don't support the interests of some at the cost of others. They're sort of a zero sum mentality that can end up costing all of us actually at the end of the day. A digital economy produces prosperity and value for all. It does support business interests. It does support the great developments for consumers that a lot of digital platforms have provided, but that doesn't come at the cost of economic security, of worker security, of diverse opinions, of racial minorities, of indigenous peoples, of women. The issue is that right now our digital world through the technologies that have globalized to the world are more or less structured, influenced and dominated by a few technology companies that are located in a small sliver of the world – in Silicon Valley, in Seattle and also actually in China. And they all have different kind of outcomes. But the people who are leading these companies not only are they supposed to develop technologies for their private interest, never mind the effects on the rest of us, but they tend to be in terms of demographics not representative of the vast majority of their users. We don't see many women. We don't see many racial minorities. We do see some Asian and white males.
And so as a result, intentionally or not, they are coding into the digital world outcomes that are generative of greater inequality. And it's really important to just situate this on top of what our world looks like right now and even our country looks like. Three people or so with the equivalent wealth to 195 million in this country. Whoever would have imagined that. That all has happened in the past few decades. Globally seven or eight people, depending on what estimates you look at, with equivalent wealth to 3.9 to 4 billion people approximately. These are different estimates on this. That wasn't even created by the internet and digital technology. But the internet and digital technology are amplifying these problems.
So what can we do about these inequalities that we face right now? On the one hand we can see these inequalities as reasons to be upset, concerned, anxious, nervous and critical. And that's fine. I understand where that comes from. But, to me they represent alternatives and opportunities for us to actually engage in productive, progressive, pragmatic action.
So first of all, every single person who is in danger of losing their job, losing their economic security which is already happening needs to be acknowledged, addressed and humanized not just through lip service but by actually presenting economic opportunities for those people. So in other words what I'm getting at on the economic level are jobs that are shifting to the gig economy, right, like Uber drivers and so on, that many sort of studies are showing are likely the gateway to an automated world. Those people need to be protected. They either need to be presented with new types of jobs that are just, that are dignified, that are economically secure or we need to figure out other outcomes. Imagine if Uber was at least partially, if not completely, owned or an Uber type model by its drivers, by its laborers. The entire model of technology corporations right now is to make labor and costs of all forms an afterthought, to basically disregard those sorts of costs to maximize profit and valuation. And that's a very toxic model on a social level. So that's one. That's on the economic level.
Politically there's no question in my mind that what we need are not just independent auditors – and we have to not just say independent. We have to actually make transparent who these journalists are that are actually in charge of these algorithmic systems that people basically use to access news. For example, on Facebook, right. So we should actually bring reputable journalists across the political spectrum to actually design these algorithms and audit these algorithms with engineers. So there has to be public-private partnerships. That's the only way it's not going to turn into a complete implosion for Facebook, for example, which is getting so much criticism right now. But this is symptomatic of a larger problem and an opportunity for us to actually develop real solutions to these issues. So that's a second issue on the political and democratic level.
I think a third element which is both economic and political is the question of making sure that we support small businesses in the digital economy and even alternative technology platforms to create a more competitive environment. That's going to allow what we see now which is horizontal integration across the board. Monopolistic type behavior by Facebook but also Google, Amazon and so on to actually be stemmed a little bit. Don't claim the language of a marketplace without actually supporting an open marketplace. But an open marketplace just like free speech doesn't mean that it's just presumed. Everybody has to have an equal opportunity to participate in these shifts.
And then the last point I want to make which I think is very important is that vulnerable people and vulnerable communities in our world who have been historically discriminated against need to be first and foremost part of these solutions. Part of where we go and what we consider moving forward.
Workers should have power over designing platforms that define the future of work. Black and brown communities including like Black Lives Matter type communities that are victims of AI's algorithmic systems that are turning out to be racist across the board, whether it's predictive policing or courtroom algorithmic systems, they should be designing those systems or even making decisions whether those systems should exist. So what I'm getting at is we have to completely open up the palette socially, politically and culturally over who has power and governance over technologies. That can coexist with Silicon Valley. That can coexist with Amazon, but it's not this blindness. What has basically happened is we've all become more or less blind lemmings in this socially engineered game that is now disrupting in a very negative way all of our lives. And that's why we have to do something about it right now.
- Intentional or not, certain inequalities are inherent in a digital economy that is structured and controlled by a few corporations that don't represent the interests or the demographics of the majority.
- While concern and anger are valid reactions to these inequalities, UCLA professor Ramesh Srinivasan also sees it as an opportunity to take action.
- Srinivasan says that the digital economy can be reshaped to benefit the 99 percent if we protect laborers in the gig economy, get independent journalists involved with the design of algorithmic news systems, support small businesses, and find ways that groups that have been historically discriminated against can be a part of these solutions.
- Revolt on the horizon? How young people really feel about digital ... ›
- The Online Economy Is Breaking Businesses, and Stealing Our ... ›
- These Cities Are Ready to Handle the Digital Economy - Big Think ›
To create wiser adults, add empathy to the school curriculum.
- Stories are at the heart of learning, writes Cleary Vaughan-Lee, Executive Director for the Global Oneness Project. They have always challenged us to think beyond ourselves, expanding our experience and revealing deep truths.
- Vaughan-Lee explains 6 ways that storytelling can foster empathy and deliver powerful learning experiences.
- Global Oneness Project is a free library of stories—containing short documentaries, photo essays, and essays—that each contain a companion lesson plan and learning activities for students so they can expand their experience of the world.
The inequalities impact everything from education to health.
Astrophysicist Michelle Thaller talks ISS and why NICER is so important.
- Being outside of Earth's atmosphere while also being able to look down on the planet is both a challenge and a unique benefit for astronauts conducting important and innovative experiments aboard the International Space Station.
- NASA astrophysicist Michelle Thaller explains why one such project, known as NICER (Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer), is "one of the most amazing discoveries of the last year."
- Researchers used x-ray light data from NICER to map the surface of neutrons (the spinning remnants of dead stars 10-50 times the mass of our sun). Thaller explains how this data can be used to create a clock more accurate than any on Earth, as well as a GPS device that can be used anywhere in the galaxy.
Philosophers like to present their works as if everything before it was wrong. Sometimes, they even say they have ended the need for more philosophy. So, what happens when somebody realizes they were mistaken?
Sometimes philosophers are wrong and admitting that you could be wrong is a big part of being a real philosopher. While most philosophers make minor adjustments to their arguments to correct for mistakes, others make large shifts in their thinking. Here, we have four philosophers who went back on what they said earlier in often radical ways.
Just before I turned 60, I discovered that sharing my story by drawing could be an effective way to both alleviate my symptoms and combat that stigma.
I've lived much of my life with anxiety and depression, including the negative feelings – shame and self-doubt – that seduced me into believing the stigma around mental illness: that people knew I wasn't good enough; that they would avoid me because I was different or unstable; and that I had to find a way to make them like me.