Digital Government
Facebook, Google, and Digital Public Infrastructure
Who should rule our digital world?
The biggest difference between the analog world and the digital one is that our day-to-day activities can now be tracked and consolidated into mass amounts of data that give unprecedented insight into individual and collective behavior.
That data has been the raw material Big Tech has processed and turned into profit by selling our information to advertising companies — a phenomenon Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff has dubbed “surveillance capitalism.”
From a purely economic standpoint, there are concerns around monopoly power, but from a social and political standpoint, this evolution raises much broader issues about what it means to live in a digital world. According to José van Dijck, a distinguished professor in media and digital societies at Utrecht University in the Netherlands:
Beyond market value, the [American] platform ecosystem [dominated by the Big Five tech companies (Google-Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft)] revolves around societal power and influence. The Big Five increasingly act as gatekeepers to all online social traffic and economic activities; their services influence the very texture of society and the process of democracy. In other words, they have gained rule-setting power.
The political conversation, especially in the United States, has been focused on regulating Big Tech and enforcing antitrust laws. However, regulation is only part of a much larger project of ushering in a digital world that is equitable, sustainable, and inclusive.
Understanding Digital Public Infrastructure
Ethan Zuckerman defines digital public infrastructure (DPI) as “infrastructures that let us engage in public and civic life in digital spaces.” To this end, Zuckerman argues that platforms like Facebook and Google have only “accidentally” become DPI. Mark Zuckerberg never intended for Facebook to wield the social and political power it does, yet finds himself sweating through congressional hearings on the platform’s influence over election results.
While Zuckerman has a broader definition of DPI in regards to citizenship, the OECD defines it in a more government-centric way as “platforms such as identification (ID), payment and data exchange systems that help countries deliver vital services to their people.”
What is true for both definitions is that DPI is all about building the tools, resources, and spaces that enable societies to function and ultimately thrive in the digital era.
The fact that much of DPI is owned and operated by the private sector has a number of limitations when it comes to prioritizing the public in digital public infrastructure. In the words of van Dijck: “The American platform ecosystem hardly allows for public space on the internet and tends to favor commercial benefits and private interests over public ones.”
Big Tech has of course delivered significant value to society through the diffusion of new technologies and services, but as digital continues to occupy more of our everyday lives it is critical DPI is designed with the public interest in mind.
Lessons from India and Barcelona
In 2009, India was the first country in the world to establish a unique biometric identification system for its residents. Referred to as Aadhaar, India’s identification system is a preeminent example of DPI. In line with the OECD definition, Aadhaar has allowed the Indian government to vastly improve its service delivery and has been transformational in bringing more of its people into the digital economy. In fact, reports indicate that “India managed to achieve in 7 years the kind of progress in financial inclusion that would’ve taken 47 years otherwise.”
The beauty of Aadhaar is that while it might be an ID system on the surface, it functions as a platform upon which the Indian government is able to stack complementary digital infrastructures such as payments and data exchange (see here for more on the inner workings of Aadhaar).
The development of Aadhaar aligns with the government’s broader strategy of a “self-reliant India,” which includes reducing Big Tech’s control over the digital economy. According to India’s Minister of State for electronics and IT, “It’s imperative for India’s sovereignty that the digital economy be resilient, and its platforms and technologies be accessed and run from India.”
In simple terms, Aadhaar represents a government taking the initiative to deliver public value to its people by building and operating its own DPI. That said, trading Big Tech for Big Government still leaves a lot to be desired for achieving a digital world that is equitable and inclusive.
Moving beyond Big Tech and Big Government, Barcelona has led the way in promoting an agenda focused on citizen-first data rights and data sovereignty at the city level. Initially, at the forefront of the smart city movement, led by organizations like Google’s Sidewalk Labs, Barcelona emerged as a leader in adopting a more bottom-up approach to digital transformation.
Focused on allowing the city and its people to determine the direction of digitization, Evgeny Morozov and Francesca Bria explain that Barcelona’s strategy implies “reclaiming critical knowledge regarding data and technology infrastructures, which far too often remains in the hands of major multinational service providers while involving local SMEs and innovators to develop the digital services and solutions citizens need.”
To achieve a citizen-centered data ecosystem, Barcelona consolidated the city’s siloed data into a centralized infrastructure called the “data commons.” In addition to rewriting procurement deals to ensure data sharing from contractors, the city established a new DPI as part of the DECODE project, which gave citizens control over their data through distributed ledger technology.
Barcelona’s digital transformation is still ongoing, but the city’s push to give control of data back to citizens and build the DPI to make it possible is evidence our digital future can be far more democratic than it is today.
Shaping the Digital Future
Big Tech has dominated much of the world’s digital infrastructure. However, as the world continues to realize that digital is far more than a business venture with serious implications for our lived realities, we must ensure digital transformation doesn’t just serve the private interests of Big Tech but the interests of society as a whole.
While Aadhaar in India presents a fascinating case of state-led DPI, Big Government alone is not the answer. Similarly, Barcelona presents a compelling alternative that gives control back to its citizens. But, if taken too far, citizen control can also present its own challenges.
What we need then to ensure a thriving digital world is what Henry Mintzberg has been advocating for since the 1990s: balance. In his words, “Business is not all good, the government is not all bad. Each has its place in a balanced society alongside cooperative and non-owned organizations.”
As we move forward and work to determine the nature of our digital future, it would be prudent to heed Mintzberg’s advice.
