Context and Technology Discussions
By: Taylor Barkley, Program Officer for Tech and Innovation at Stand Together
Discussions about technology often seem isolated or siloed from context. Because of this isolation, this lack of context, these discussions suffer. The absence of contextual awareness about history, current data, and legal contexts can have real consequences. We see this manifest in duplicative or needless regulations, a culture less open to new ideas and innovation, or, on an individual basis, undue stress.
In these contextless discussions, technology is treated as a single or a few points of light instead of a full constellation. All discussions about an emerging technology bring a comparison of some sort. New technologies by their nature are new ways of doing things. Adoption of technologies offers the chance to change one way of accomplishing a goal for another. This implies trade-offs. Whether in a policy or cultural context, in order to even have a discussion, a baseline or status quo is necessary.
However, far too often this baseline is free from context. Three crucial contexts are historical, data, and legal. A full analysis and utilization of at least two of these three contexts can bolster a meaningful technology discussion.
A key question to ask when writing, thinking, or talking about technology’s role in society is: “Compared to what?”
Historical context
Discussions about the role of technology, particularly if they warn of harm from technologies, often leave out crucial historical context. That omission can drastically color the tone and the takeaway of the message the author is trying to convey.
This is often done by authors discussing the effects of social media. There are claims that social media is making us angrier. But compared to what? Angrier than I would be in a universe with no other human beings? Angrier than I was 10 minutes ago? 500 years ago? Angrier than my neighbor? There is an assumption in these cases, at least as I understand them, that “angrier” compared to a former time or alternate reality without digital social media.
Without historical context, this argument can make sense. After all, Twitter and Facebook comments get intense. Yet, when historical context is brought into the discussion, the premise becomes dubious.
First, it is difficult to measure absolute anger across a society during the present day. Current research efforts can perhaps provide an approximation for anger and then measure that. But acting, false rage, satire, etc. could also be caught up in those measurement techniques.
Second, there is a missing historical analysis, which is the analysis we would really want to see if the assumption is the comparison to attitudes back in time. This is a bit easier perhaps. If my comparison point is an assumption that people in olden times were more pleasant to one another, perhaps informed by BBC period dramas, then I would also think social media is making us angrier.
However, the historical record offers much in the way of refuting the original claim. I recently learned about the historical field of emotional history. This is the history of how people talked about their feelings. The fantastic book “Bored, Angry, Lonely, Stupid: Changing Feelings about Technology from the Telegraph to Twitter” by Luke Fernandez and Susan J. Matt is a great introduction to this field in the backdrop of technology.
Fernandez and Matt talk about the American history of indignation meetings. These were gatherings of dozens to hundreds of people who met to air grievances and express their angst about monopolies, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, or whatever topic merited indignation.
Does this level of furor remind you of anything?
Of course, the big difference now compared to in-person indignation meetings is we are aware and capable of what appears to be a constant stream of indignation via digital platforms. But human beings have always been angry about a variety of issues.
No one can see the future in detail. Change is often hard. But if we can learn anything from history, it is the vast range of human ingenuity to adapt and learn.
Current data context
When the downsides of new technologies are bemoaned, the question needs to be asked each time: Compared to what current data? This provides an important frame of reference as well.
The importance of this context is frequently and correctly applied in the discussion surrounding autonomous vehicles. Human drivers have literally been in the driver’s seat of vehicles for as long as humans have had vehicles, so the proposition that those humans will be replaced with machines is an adjustment. Many of the concerns are about the safety of AVs compared to human drivers. Videos of tragic accidents where AVs or presumptive AVs (like Tesla’s autopilot mode) make fatal mistakes and ethical scenarios of extreme situations like the trolley problem have been popularized.
AV proponents usually then compare the developing safety record of AVs versus the current safety record of human drivers. Most accidents in the U.S. are due to human error. The capabilities of each “driver” are also worth comparing to the ideal, including distractions, moods, strengths, and weaknesses.
For instance, I often notice how my own emotions affect my driving. When there’s another driver on the highway next to me who happens to have done a few things miles back that irritate me, I might accelerate or prevent him from passing me in the lane. These are risky behaviors! And I am by no means alone. Road rage is a significant portion of human error motivated from major to petty instances. One thing we know about computers: They aren’t motivated by emotional factors on their own.
With the context of current data, a more accurate picture of a technology’s impact on society and safety can be foreseen.
Legal context
Finally, in a policy setting, it is easy to assume that a new technology should require new laws. Although new technologies provide new ways of doing things or innovate upon existing tasks, older laws or slightly amended versions of these laws can effectively regulate these innovations. Often an existing rule mitigates any potential downsides or misuse of a new technology.
It is helpful to examine the legal context for new technologies.
For example, unmanned aerial vehicles or drones are one such technology where legal context is often not applied. Small remote aircraft have been around since the 1930s at least, although they were popularized by hobbyists in the 1970s. In current discussions, “drones” usually refers to the quad copter model that, due to advances in technology, were made cheaply enough and are easy enough to operate that remotely controlled small aircraft burst from niche hobby to mainstream adoption.
Many of these drones had camera attachments to take either amateur or professional photos. But the prospect of a flying camera, able to peer into places otherwise thought private, can be concerning. (Historical context: Throughout the camera’s history there have been concerns over privacy.) Each iteration of the camera seems to bring with it a sense that privacy is dead. People from private citizens to senators are concerned about flying cameras peeping into their windows or backyards.
Such worries have prompted legislation from federal and state governments, lawsuits, and calls for police action. These bills often sought to deal with regulation of drones generally. What was often missing from these discussions about new legislation is legal context. Laws like peeping Tom statutes are already on the books and would make illegal many of the examples cited as privacy concerns for drones.
Rather than create a whole new set of legal structures for a new technology, thought leaders and policymakers should think critically about the status quo and its legal context. Often the answer to any concerns is already there and merely needs to be applied or slightly amended.
In technology debates it is worth pausing to ask: compared to what? What is the historical context in which this new technology has entered society? What does current data say about the state of everyday life for people who would be affected by a new technology? And finally, what is the legal context governing the new technology?
This is by no means an exhaustive list of contexts. But starting with these three will lend itself to better discussion, policymaking, and overall outlook on the impact technology may have on our lives.
