Translator: Roberto Minelli Reviewer: Muriel de Meo
2019:
It's been just over ten years
since social networks started to pervade our society,
becoming part of our daily lives.
Ten years when almost everything has changed.
Today, when we talk about the Internet,
we often ask ourselves if it is making us more haters,
more isolated, more uninformed, or more polarized.
Every day,
the news tells us about a world in which people argue on social media:
people are no longer able to talk without insulting each other.
And so we fail to understand what's really going on.
But, is it really like that?
We often wonder if the Internet is making us more haters,
but maybe we should start asking ourselves different questions
to truly understand what's going on with platforms,
and whether the platforms, that were first meant to unite us
are indeed responsible for a deep social fragmentation.
How do we understand the reasons for this?
A provocation: What if, instead of asking ourselves
if social networks only make us more haters or less informed,
we start wondering if they are making us more unequal?
By embracing this perspective and talking about inequality,
perhaps we will find new answers.
In the context of Internet, talking about inequality
means talking not only about online hatred and disinformation,
but also about something that is often neglected: data.
And data are at the core of the digital society.
Data run, in some way,
the inner machinery of our society.
And when we talk about data and inequality,
we need to ask ourselves who owns this data
and especially what their goals are.
One of the first things we have to consider,
when we talk about data,
is, who owns them?
And also try to break some spells about data.
We spontaneously think that data is representative of people
and at school they teach us that mathematics is not an opinion.
So, we may think
that the approaches that aggregate and leverage this data -
that is, the algorithms that power all the applications we use -
are neutral.
But they are not: Technology isn't neutral,
and that's something we have to keep in mind.
Technology is a human product:
Behind every algorithm, behind every application,
behind every platform there is a human being,
with her own vision of the world,
with her own ideas and objectives.
And this is the first step
to adopt critical thinking
towards all the platforms we use.
Raise your hand if you have never heard the sentence:
"If the service is free, you are the product."
It's well known that the platforms developed in the Silicon Valley
are huge private monopolies
that own our data
and have the toolbox to dig into them.
And they do this for profit,
to create more and more personalized advertisements.
Nowadays, these platforms are part of our society:
we use them for everything,
from booking a car or a restaurant to keeping an eye on our health,
finding a partner -
but we still struggle to understand how these algorithms work.
And above all,
where our data are stored and who are they shared with.
When I talk about these things -
and I do it often, in fact, my friends hate me by now -
one of the things I am asked about is: But, why should I care about that?
At the end of the day,
I don't mind personalized advertisements.
I know what to buy,
or in any case, I don't care about my privacy
because I have nothing to hide.
When we talk about privacy, first of all,
we have to think about privacy as a human right.
As such, privacy had never something to do
with having something to hide,
but rather with the freedom of having our own private space,
free from external interference, both private and public.
But above all,
I believe that when we talk about privacy today, in 2019,
we must think of privacy
as a collective right, not just an individual one.
Let me give you an example:
Algorithms do not aggregate data of individuals but rather groups,
thus they are very often able to know our soft spots -
and use them for profit.
Today, algorithms are already used
to make social decisions:
In the USA and in Australia, for example, algorithms are already used
to decide whether a person deserves a job,
whether she is a potential criminal,
or if she deserves a mortgage.
These examples teach us
that, as we have already said, algorithms are not neutral.
If an algorithm is not neutral,
it will harness
the prejudices embedded in our society
and mimic them, thus amplifying injustice.
There are very famous cases in the US - like the one you see here -
where an algorithm was used
to determine whether a person was a potential criminal.
This algorithm had a bias against blacks.
Another example is the algorithm used by Amazon
that employed Artificial Intelligence
to decide whether a person could be safely hired.
This algorithm had a bias against women.
Why? Because if our society tells us
that blacks are more likely to be criminals than whites,
the algorithm will say the same thing.
If the society tells us
that women are less likely than men to do leadership work,
the algorithm will say the same thing.
That's why it's a collective problem:
Because the algorithm reproduces the dominant culture.
But I want to give you another example:
There are cases, such as Cambridge Analytica
or the Snowden case,
that have taught us that,
more often than we think, platforms share our data
not only with other companies,
but also with other states and governments,
that leverage it to know our movements, our conversations -
to actually spy on us.
Indeed, this is very problematic.
Let me give you another example: I am an activist.
I am one of those who, by definition,
activists are those who question power and demand social change.
For us, surveillance means control.
This has already happened in France, not far from us,
when in 2015,
after the terrorist attacks, when the state of emergency was declared
the French government started to follow and spy on environmental activists,
preventing them from demonstrating.
In this sense, the right to privacy is linked to other rights,
such as the right to demonstrate, the right to organize,
the freedom of expression.
These are all rights that have to do with "us":
We are not talking just about my data, we are talking about our data.
So when we talk about the digital society,
I think it is very important
that we start to see ourselves as members of a community,
and we start to think of our data as a common good.
Plus,
we should start a conversation
in which we, as a society,
decide what is private and what is public.
We should begin to question
our role as citizens consumers
who are not allowed to choose - only private companies can -
the terms and conditions of our social participation,
of our online visibility, of the content we consume -
which contribute to create our vision of the world.
We really need to start a whole new debate
to set ethical rules and limits.
In this regard, we must learn from the past.
Consider the history of oil, for example.
Leveraging this resource
allowed us to develop our society in a remarkable way.
But perhaps we should have thought earlier
on how to regulate oil companies,
not in the midst of the climate change crisis.
Well, we cannot let the same thing happen with the Internet.
We have to set limits.
After I scared you, however,
I would like to give you some hope
by telling you about my story as an activist.
I have always been intrigued by these issues:
At first, I studied them at the university,
then I tried to bring my knowledge outside of the university.
The first thing I learned was,
in order to understand how to solve problems on the Internet,
we must always talk about the intersection
between society, technology, politics, and economics.
We cannot trust
those who only offer us technical or legal solutions.
About a year ago, I became the face of a campaign
called "Violated Intimacy" -
I am still excited to mention it
because in a few months
we turned a petition on change.org into an actual law.
How was this done?
First of all, we assembled a very large network of experts -
a step that nowadays is often neglected.
In our campaign on "revenge porn" -
the non-consensual sharing of intimate material -
we needed to consult not only lawyers, not only politicians,
but also computer scientists, psychologists, sociologists.
We built a grassroot network
to make sure these problems are approached with the right foot.
This was incredibly important because in our journey,
some proposed alternative solutions,
such as the law to prohibit "sexting" -
the exchange of intimate videos and photos between partners -
thus effectively censoring citizens' freedom of expression.
And there were those who proposed technical solutions:
"Let's implement fingerprinting!
Let's build a large online database where to profile all the photos.
In this way, we will be able to remove the material quicker!" -
creating other problems related to the surveillance of citizens.
This example highlights the fact that,
when we talk about online problems,
we have to observe them from a social and cultural perspective.
We should acknowledge,
much like revenge porn is not born with the Internet,
but a form of that was already present in society -
the one against women.
Likewise, we won't "solve" online hatred
just by registering citizens on the platforms using their IDs
nor will we solve the problem of online monopolies
by using new technologies such as the blockchain -
because there is no deterministic effect
of the use of a technology.
We must think outside the box.
To this aim, we can do two things.
First, we should educate ourselves:
We need to know our rights to protect them;
we have to talk about the problem
of online monopolies that centralize all the power on the Internet;
we have to talk about how online platforms work;
we have to start leaning in, and claim what we want.
And we have to reconsider what is private and what is public.
The other thing is to unite and make activism.
I like to quote Greta Thunberg, in cases like this,
who says: "Activism Works."
And it actually does!
Maybe, by looking at the world through an individualistic gaze
that we've become so accustomed to adopt
we have forgotten the strength of many people
who team up for the same cause.
But the truth is,
if we want social change, we have to rethink about ourselves.
When we talk about digital rights,
we are talking about the future of our democracy.
We have to ask ourselves
how we can bridge the huge social gap
created by social media platforms,
and how to solve online hatred.
It will be a very long process,
but I think it's the only thing we can do.
Also, we need to talk about the potential of the Internet -
not just the problems it causes.
The Internet, not only in my case but also in other contexts,
is responsible for the expansion of social movements in the world,
from #MeToo to #FridayForFuture.
It has become a tool
for people to gather online.
At the same time,
it can create a protected space
for discriminated communities to talk to each other.
So, let's believe that the Internet can help us:
but first, let's ask ourselves where we are going.
We are at a crucial moment in history -
we absolutely have to start working together.
One of the things I learned this year
is that people will always tell you that nothing ever changes,
that we can't do anything, that things are the way they are.
But my message for you today is that it is not true.
I started from scratch, and today I'm here.
And it was only because I believed it.
So, let's believe in our rights,
let's believe in our freedom, and let's believe in change.
Thank you.
(Applause)