Let’s put people at the heart of internet regulation
by Catherine Miller |@doteveryoneuk
On 1st March 2018 IIPP hosted an event in the UK Parliament which brought together experts to discuss the regulation of the digital economy. In this guest blog Catherine Miller, Director of Policy at Doteveryone, outlines why people must be placed at the heart of internet regulation.
Each week we face seemingly impossible new conundrums. From how to prevent a proliferation of fake news skewing our democratic processes, to how to prise a chainsaw from the unsuspecting hands of Peppa Pig on YouTube, to how to get tax out of multinational corporations with imaginative approaches to managing their profits.
This slew of challenges can lead to a cat and mouse game. When outrage reaches a certain threshold, tech companies tweak their products just enough to deflect concerns… until the next thing comes along.
But this responsive ping pong distracts from the broader question: in whose name do we regulate? To whose benefit do we tax?
It’s vital that the public is recognised — not as one of many stakeholders to be consulted — but as the primary stakeholder in this conversation and as the ultimate beneficiary of regulation. Public views must be central to the debate over how the relationship between tech companies and society develops and must drive how our policymakers respond.
At Doteveryone, we’ve spent the past year researching public attitudes to and understanding of technology. We’ve highlighted three key findings:
- The internet has had a strongly positive impact on our lives as individuals, but people are less convinced it has been beneficial for society as a whole. 50% say it has made life a lot better for people like themselves, only 12% say it’s had a very positive impact on society.
- There is a major understanding gap around technologies. Two thirds of people don’t realise that data they have not actively shared is collected on the internet. A quarter have no idea how internet companies make their money.
- People feel disempowered by a lack of transparency in how online products and services operate and there is a public demand for greater accountability. Two-thirds say government should be helping ensure companies treat their customers, staff and society fairly.
Taking each of these in turn can help shape the regulatory response.
Individual vs Society
People’s relationship to the internet is ambivalent. It’s perfectly possible to love the convenience, fun and rich resource of the internet individually while feeling anxious about the impact on the wider world.
In everyday life it’s often hard to identify where trade-offs between individual benefit and potential societal harm take place. In the research we presented some clear choices.
We asked how they would feel if an online retailer offered free one-day delivery for lower income families, but this resulted in local shops closing down — 69% found this unacceptable. Or if their bank invested more in combating fraud and cyber crime, but closed their local branch — 61% said it was unacceptable. Or if their council made savings by putting services online and cut Council tax as a result, but some people found it hard to access these services — 56% found it unacceptable.
Technology is changing the world at a pace never seen before but the public does not want digital technologies to create disruption at the expense of communities and social structures.
Significantly, poorer people feel the least benefit to themselves from the internet with 43% saying it’s made life a lot better for them, compared to 57% for the wealthiest. And they are more likely to say that the internet has been negative for society overall (22%) than the wealthiest (17%).
It’s important that the regulatory response recognises tech companies as the instigators of this change. They therefore bear the civic responsibility to help our societies adapt and ensure the most vulnerable are helped. This starts with paying taxes in the countries where they operate.
Parallels have been drawn with the taxes imposed on oil companies for the rights to oil. But tech companies are reshaping society in ways which oil companies have never done — their duty to society is even more profound.
Understanding gap
Doteveryone’s research found the public has limited understanding about how tech companies operate — both in terms of their use of personal information and their funding models.
For example, only 17% realised that information which other people share about them is collected. And while two-thirds could identify advertising as a revenue stream for many technology companies, less than a third recognised that businesses make money from selling data. One-fifth believe tech companies fund themselves.
We found people wanted to know more — particularly about how their data is used — but also more broadly about companies’ values, governance and adherence to local laws — but can’t currently find this out.
This lack of understanding is helpful to companies who wish to evade accountability. They remain immune from consumer activism as long as those consumers remain in the dark.
When considering regulation it’s important to consider the role that an informed public can play in demanding accountability and driving change. Overcoming this understanding gap would help accelerate and support the regulatory response.
Accountability
Doteveryone’s research revealed a sense of public resignation about the ability to hold tech companies to account.
70% agreed with the statement “I don’t like it when I hear news about companies avoiding tax, but there’s nothing I can do to change it”. 43% agreed “there’s no point in reading the terms and conditions because these companies do what they want anyway”.
When asked who, if anyone, should be responsible for enforcing rules that ensure service providers treat their customers, staff and society fairly, 66% of respondents believe government should play a role, 61% say industries should share this responsibility, and 60% would like to see the creation of an independent body.
There is a need therefore for government, industry and society to come together and address this gap in accountability.
The response
Based on our research, Doteveryone has three recommendations:
- Public engagement and education — at all levels of society
- Standards for understandability and transparency — T&Cs, design patterns
- Regulation and accountability — a single place for the public to turn to, responsible for upholding standards and showing responsible technology best practice
These recommendations are deliberately focused on tangible outcomes the public can relate to. The aim is to create a resilient and flexible system which can address a fast changing environment — not just a series of reactive responses to the latest disruptive wheeze of a tech company.
We need a political response, not just a technocratic response to how technology companies are regulated.
Starting from the point of view of where public concerns are, where the appetite for accountability lies will meet that political need.
Catherine Miller is Director of Policy at Doteveryone , an independent organisation established to champion responsible technology for the good of everyone in society.
