Although the digital revolution began several decades ago, there is still no global digital economic order. Instead, there are divergent visions of digital capitalism, the main exponents of which are the United States, China and the European Union, which have been developing their own models for years and have begun to export them to developing and emerging economies. Without greater international alignment there is a risk that the world will miss out on promising technological solutions to shared problems.
The question, of course, is what kind of alternate digital order it is possible in today’s world. How to make the internet serve citizens again, instead of dominant political and economic interests? Reorienting the incentives that drive the digital economy will not be easy. But some recent official initiatives show the demand for new governance models for the sector.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for example, is trying to put limits on international tax arbitration, a favorite practice of US mega-tech companies. Meanwhile, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, appointed critics of the industry to the head of key institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission, and instructed regulators to investigate the problem of abuse of power of platforms in the markets. digital.
(It may interest you: The Matrix: the origin and controversial legacy of the film in the real world).
For its part, the Chinese government passed a new law for the protection of personal information and is carrying out a major internal campaign against monopolies, with the aim of controlling an internal digital market that is exploding. And the European Union, based on its historic General Data Protection Regulation, promotes a more expansive vision guided by ethical criteria in relation to the regulation of the use of data, digital markets and artificial intelligence. In addition, countries like Spain and Germany are directly targeting the business model based on data mining.
Regulators and governments around the world are looking to redefine their agendas for AI and data, nurture the next generation of digital players, and develop global standards tailored to their respective visions. But if different jurisdictions are looking to put limits on digital platforms that have become too powerful, perhaps they have overlaps on which to build a more effective global digital order.
Of course, the digital authorities of the EU and the United States do not agree on everything, but they share the vision of a more open and cooperative digital order. To achieve effective alignment behind this overarching goal they must understand what they are up against. Divergent views of the founding structure of the global network have already taken deep roots.
Fragmented internet
In this emerging divided internet or ‘splinternet’, there is increasing informational isolation. People in different watertight compartments have radically different ideas about the facts and what is true. There is not even agreement on how to protect and coordinate critical elements of digital architecture like GPS. Each jurisdiction has its own framework (for example, China’s BeiDou satellite navigation system, India’s regional navigation satellite system, and Europe’s Galileo system).
This fragmentation in the governance of digital and informational power was accompanied by a rise in illiberalism, in which many countries seek a broader social control and explore new channels for the distribution of propaganda. Today, the cost of experimenting with new modes of digital authoritarianism is much lower, because the basic tools are available to everyone and easy to use.
In fact, platforms like Facebook have subsidized (without seeking it, but not necessarily without knowing it) the cost of implementing large-scale disinformation campaigns. Create the tech stack (infrastructure of software) necessary to implement a totalitarian system of surveillance and social control is already very easy, it is only a matter of assembling the correct applications.
Main problems
The digital order born in the absence of global coordination raises two fundamental concerns. The first is the digital side of major global challenges such as climate change and pandemics, which exist independently of liberal or illiberal governments. Just as the effects of climate change will not be felt in the same way everywhere, the technologies needed for adaptation and mitigation measures (or for epidemic surveillance) will not be evenly distributed.
(You can also read: ‘Roaming’ will disappear from January 1 within the Andean Community).
The second issue is the incompatibility of divergent views in relation to the future of digital economies. Many developing and emerging countries have not yet decided how to expand and govern their digital capabilities in such a way that new technologies serve their broader strategies for achieving sustained economic growth. Both concerns require a joint response. If the measures to improve access to technology do not take into account the different local and national growth strategies, could consolidate an undesirable future digital economic order, even if they promise progress against other problems such as climate change.
Realism forces us to recognize that the current competition between models of data control, hardware design and governance of the platforms will be very present in any multilateral negotiation.
The search for a joint solution to these concerns is directly related to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. In public health, education or climate change, each country needs to think more about achieving international alignment than about obtaining small geopolitical advantages. But, of course, realism forces us to recognize that the current competition between models of data control, design of hardware and governance of the platforms will be very present in any multilateral negotiation on these issues.
That said, all three digital powerhouses can sit at the table with an open gaze. Create one more global digital order stable and consistent it does not necessarily imply reaching a total alignment between the three models. But not thinking about the incompatibilities that exist today can lead to a competition in which everyone loses. In the immediate term, the most important thing is that there is a certain degree of interoperability in areas connected with global problems.
After two years of living with covid-19, all the great powers and regions should already be aware of the importance of seamless sharing of certain types of data. Now they need to begin to identify other areas of overlap. A better new digital order is possible, but it will not emerge on its own.
JOSH ENTSMINGER
MARK ESPOSITO (**), TERENCE TSE (***) AND OLAF GROTH (****) © PROJECT SYNDICATE
LONDON
PhD student in innovation and public policy at the UCL Institute for Public Purpose and Innovation.
(**) Co-founder of Nexus FrontierTech. He is a policy associate at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
(***) Co-founder and CEO of Nexus FrontierTech, he is a professor at Hult International Business School.
(****)
A faculty member of Hult International Business School and the University of California, Berkeley, he is the CEO of Cambrian.ai and a member of the global network of experts at the World Economic Forum.
More news In depth
– This is how the first municipal secretariat CTeI of Colombia operates
– Why does Apple almost reach a valuation of 3 trillion dollars?
digital
global
#Imagine #global #digital #order