Freedom illusion in the digital era

IN THE past few weeks, media worldwide are filled with articles showing how technology was destroying politics. In a democracy like that of China, fear is from the ultra-powered state as in the Big Brother of the novel 1984written by George Orwell. In a democracy like that of the United States, concern is that technology companies will continue to exacerbate political and social polarizations by helping spread disinformations and creating filtration ʹfllusska” ideological dystopia of Aldous Hookley, Brave New World.

In fact, by bringing about a convergence between democracy and dictatorship, new technologies make both these distolic visions seem impossible. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to be afraid of.

Many media coverage was recently given to the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party [of Jehovah's Witnesses] CPC, where President Xi Jinping was consolidating his power. He is, as observers warn, creating a dictatorship of the information age in which technologies from which they were expected to bring freedom to the 1.4 billion Chinese residents are already enabling him to strengthen his authority. By providing the government with detailed information on the needs, feelings, and aspirations of ordinary Chinese, the internet allows Chinese leaders to ease discontent. In other words, they already use the Great Givers [ B G DATA], rather than brutal force, to ensure stability.

And the data is really big. More than 170 million facial surveillance cameras cover every step that citizens use. The security system of artificial intelligence may expose suspects to a crime until they ride the bicycle to the lake or until they buy anything from street vendors, immediately calling the police.

The Chinese Communist Party is using technology to manage its ranks, developing dozens of applications to communicate with members. Meanwhile, it blocks some of the pieces of technology: forcing all technology companies to have servers in China, thus subjecting themselves to its censorship.

The impact of technology on American politics was even more evident, but it is analysed by market concepts, more than those of the state. Among the highlights of some was the role that newshake played in last year's presidential election results. Facebook has acknowledged that 126 million Americans may have read false news during the election campaign.

Recently, Special Investigator Robert Mueller is conducting an investigation into whether President Donald J. Trump was helped by Russia's interference. He accused Trump's campaign chief Paul Manafort of 12 counts including “conspiration against the United States” for his actions before the campaign. The foreign adviser in Trump's campaign, George Papadopoulos, was convicted of lying to him The FBI about meetings with individuals linked to the Russian government during the campaign, though it had been found guilty and has been co-operating with investigators since summer.

But beyond these dramatic developments there is a broader anxiety about the ability of technological companies to control information given to people. With their secret algorithms decontinating the way we perceive the world, it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to make decisions with awareness of what philosophers perceive as the basic dimension of free will.

Major technology companies are worth more than the GDP of several states together, and thus are seeking to maximize profits, not social welfare. Yet, by the time attention is replacing money as the most valuable comfort, the impact of decisions they make is enormous. James Williams, a Google engineer who became an academic, argues that the digital age has formed a wild competition for our attention, and only a few have benefited more than Trump, which is the same as it was for Ronald Reagan television.

At the same time, the impact of technology on politics is relatively independent of the type of regime. Technology is clouding the difference between open and closed societies, and between free and inexpensive economies, making it impossible for each to exist in ideal format.

Uncovering mass government oversight by NSA, Edward Snowden made it clear that the desire of states to know everything is not limited to China. Quite the opposite.

In China, things are moving in the opposite direction. The Chinese government is putting constant pressure on major technology companies to play a direct role in decision-making and direct access to their data. At the same time, however, the internet is changing the nature of Chinese politics and economy, prompting both to be more responsible for consumer needs.

For example, a friend who works for the research company Baidu explained to me how this company is trying to increase censorship on consumers, testing ways in which people prefer to censorship. The giant Alibaba's Jack thinks China can use Great Data to determine calibrated state interventions that would enable it to perform the free market economy worse. In the decades to come, Ma believes, the “economy will grow more and more. ”

In the digital era, the greatest danger is not that technology will grant freedom to growing autocratic societies. The danger is that the fears of Orwell and Hookley will become manifestations of both types of systems, creating another kind of dystopi. Because of the deepest desires, citizens will have the illusion of freedom and power. In reality, their lives, the information they get, and the choices they make will determine algorithms and platforms controlled by government elites or irresponsible corporations. Project Syndicate Translated from Periscope