Blockchain: Power to the p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ privileged
Are Facebook and Google the enemy always and forever?
As someone who is interested in technology, global/human development and progress, and bringing more power to all people, I’ve found myself at the Web3 Summit in Berlin, an important conference in the public blockchain space. Just to preface everything here, I think this conference is really valuable and I really appreciate deeply what Web3 Foundation is doing. It’s hard, new and is messy and they’re doing a commendable job facilitating these conversations as a community. Some amazing speakers were lined up that I feel very privileged to hear (and I’m sure those talk are available online as well). With all the excitement and energy from meeting new people, I’ve came across some common threads that I feel are concerning as someone that sits in between general technology and international development.
The most crowded sessions included Richard Stallman who talked about GNU and philosophy, Harry Halper who talked about philosophy and his privacy project Nym (which just raised $2.5 million for a private token sale), and Edward Snowden who talked about his experiences and philosophy around data security and privacy more generally. One of the common threads I’ve heard not just from those three, but from a variety of folks around the conference in the general animosity towards Facebook and Google. In the field I’ve been apart of, ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development), this is not particularly new to me.
What is new to me is the lack of nuance around these companies and their benefit to society in certain areas. I’m not even going to make the assertion that they are a net positive or a net negative, but I will say there are many doors that have been opened for people because of these two companies. I’ve been critical of Facebook and Google for a long time personally, but I think it’s massively important to think through on a deeper level ad-based revenue models and not to unanimously write them off as “evil” or objectively bad with next to zero good.
Is data collection really the devil? Sometimes!
All three speakers talked about how ad-based revenue models utilizing data collection techniques are really bad. I don’t completely disagree. There are a plethora of bad things that Facebook and Google have done (and probably are doing) that go against some principles I hold like sharing data without my permission to other companies and governments (especially governments) and I do strongly believe this needs to change. The part of this conversation that really upset me was a complete neglect for the idea that all data collection for ad revenue is inherently bad. The solutions presented specifically from Snowden and Halper were simply “you should be able to pay for services and goods anonymously” which gets a lot of praise from folks in the audience. It’s a good idea in some instances! My problem comes into play when we think through folks that may not have expendable capital to use such a wide range of services.
The idea that the use Instagram, Facebook, Gmail, Google Docs, and a huge variety of other platforms and tools must be fee based or have a subscription model like Netflix and that’s the best solution for everyone is just a genuinely naive, bad stance.
It’s a stance from privilege and a stance that ignores those without means to participate in nearly equal ways folks with capital enjoy. Influential people are dreaming up new platforms to “change the world” and give “power to the people” by literally cutting off people without expendable capital because they don’t have the wealth to participate. The number of people that are very low income earners that utilize things like WhatsApp, Facebook, etc is astounding. Facebook and Google have both taken the time and energy to work in developing countries to get basic access to internet and services, which critics will probably respond with say “Yes, obviously they are just trying to get more data to make more profit” which I don’t disagree with. The intrinsic issue with that state of mind ignores the idea that this is inherently bad and evil at its core. Nym, for example from what I understand (the whitepaper hasn't been released yet), seems to rely on a fee structure to interact with the platform outside of messaging applications. This may work well in some instances, but others I genuinely will guess that it is not the future of Web 3 unless their path changes. It’s the future of a Technocracy that wants to destroy the ad revenue model and replace it with something that decentralized and funded by individual users which is going to annihilate the potential for those living in some level of poverty that want to participate.
Blockchain projects are quick to talk about giving “power to the people” and consistently ignore those living on the margins that have access already to various platforms. These systems can sustain themselves by being able to utilize data to personalize ads that can be used to help understand what appeals most to individuals. I get the controversy here, but it’s not a binary thing. It’s not just good or bad. There is nuance that needs to be expressed here. There is a reasonable case to be made that for some people, if they want to use their personal data as something of value, they certainly should be allowed to do so. To be clear, the systems of these various platforms do need to be better. They aren’t as transparent as they should be; there are major trust issues that need to be resolved. It’s frightening for me to hear people wanting to burn that whole model completely, however, and move to something much more exclusive while claiming to give “power to the people”. It may give that power, but only to those with privilege.
To pretend folks in developing communities haven’t benefited from the use of WhatsApp to communicate during a crisis, to pretend they haven’t organized via Facebook, to pretend they haven’t benefitted from being able to keep up with their family while they travel to find work is either naive or disingenuous. To pretend/believe Facebook and Google are always bad and the services they provide are bad is viewing the world with a cataract. Is it always good? No. Are there things that need to be fixed? Yes, absolutely. But don’t try to replace current systems with something that literally you’re deciding at an event with nearly zero meaningful socioeconomic diversity. It’s arrogant and ultimately I believe it’s dangerous.
We can do better, and we must if we want to make a genuinely good impact on the people we all-too-quickly use as marketing props for our ICOs.
I genuinely believe blockchain can be a deep and wide global net positive. We need to start thinking that through and bring more to the table with various socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures, invite more nonprofits and aid sector people, and overall just more anthropological perspectives.
