Digital Panopticon, Kindness as Governance, Footprints and Forgiveness

Gratitude

As my practitioner course on Ethics, Technology, and Public Policy comes to an end, it closes with N.K. Jemisin's powerful piece, “The Ones Who Stay and Fight,” urging us to fight for justice while leaving each of us the freedom to choose how we navigate the ethical dilemmas in our individual journeys as technology users and practitioners. I want to express my gratitude to the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society and Stanford University for creating this shared space- providing resources, inspiration, and a sense of community that we can lean on whenever we feel lost navigating the complexities of the digital world.

While there are still plenty of resources more to explore, absorb, and reflect on, dive deeper into each topic. I want to take a moment to quickly summarize a few key concepts that are currently at the forefront of my thoughts as a personal takeaway. These reflections crystallize the journey for me so far and serve as a foundation for my continued growth in the technology space.

Digital Panopticon and Privacy

We are living in a Digital Panopticon, where digital infrastructures are designed in ways for us to behave in a certain way that challenges our privacy and exerts invisible social controls.?

Reflecting on the privacy definition showed us just how personal its meaning can be. Each of us had a unique comfort level when it comes to being seen and setting boundaries, which makes defining privacy an individual challenge. It was enlightening to realize that privacy isn't one-size-fits-all. It's deeply specific to each person's sense of security and comfort.

A combination of philosophical and technical tools will be required to establish Privacy not just our moral right but legal right too, as in most cases, the law hasn’t progressed to the right stage as technology moves at “Godspeed.” At this speed, will it hold our hands or leave us behind has become a “big ethical blackbox”

The Reiman’s “Driving to Panopticon” further stretches this idea as:

| “ that privacy results not only from locked doors and closed curtains, but also from the way our publicly observable activities are dispersed over space and time. If we direct our privacy-protection efforts at reinforcing our doors and curtains, we may miss the way in which modern means of information collection threaten our privacy by gathering up the pieces of our public lives and making them visible from a single point. This is why the panopticon is a more fitting metaphor for the new threat to privacy “ |

Can Anonymous Speech exist without Hate Speech?

Now let's look at the speech continuum:? Free Speech ~ Hate Speech

Our behaviours online are not as simple though. As humans, we’re capable of a range of negative actions, which often manifest online as hate speech, cyberbullying, and other harmful behaviours leading up to physical violence. To prevent these, we must first examine and adjust our emotions and intentions at a fundamental level. Responsively, it’s essential to understand and recognize free speech, hate speech, and cyberbullying as we engage in the internet economy.

Addressing these issues shouldn’t rest solely on platform creators or regulators. A community-driven approach can be just as effective, as illustrated by "Community Notes" on Twitter (X), where users can contribute fact-checks to counter misinformation rather than ride on the wave of “ explicit freedom of expression under anonymity”. However, many such features are still in an experimental phase because in the grand scheme of things platform's creators still play a central role in content moderation.?

On that note, a question:

Should technology platforms belong more to their users than creators? Maybe that's how technology should fundamentally be built!

In a digital community, we should collectively pursue truth and take responsibility to prevent online behaviours that incite violence, while learning to forgive minor human missteps along the way.

As algorithms increasingly mediate online interactions, their role in regulating speech has grown. However, fairness in algorithms is often subjective, shaped by countless variables, including cultural contexts, political landscapes, and platform-specific biases. Moreover, the spread of misinformation adds another layer of complexity. False narratives amplified by algorithmic bias can incite fear, propagate hate, and erode trust. The race to deploy advanced AI systems often overlooks the need for robust safeguards, making the imperative clear: prioritize ethically optimized algorithms before scaling them to a global audience, until then maybe keep the tap closed!

The future of free expression must find a balance between empowerment and accountability, ensuring technology fosters dialogue that builds rather than divides societies.

Good news: Anonymous Speech can exist without Hate Speech; if accountability is something we want to take, and hate is something we cringe at.

Internet Governance and Kindness—Do They Even Relate?

Apparently, Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern thinks so. #starstruck

No justification needed further, I guess.

While governance on the Internet might be a lot more complex than it seems and may require a case-by-case approach, it's helpful to understand a few things as we sleepwalk in the digital space.

MSI approach?

The current real-world dilemmas of internet governance primarily conflict between freedom and security. And especially in a government’s capability to address innovation through agile governance. It raises questions about what kinds of control governments or private entities should have over digital spaces and whether certain restrictions are justified to protect collective welfare.

After all, the real world highlights a growing disconnect between governance and innovation- a rift that, in my view, is mirrored in the way people make leadership choices even.?

That makes me question-? “Is technology skyrocketing or governance turtlespeeding ?”

One favourable approach would be a multistakeholder approach to governing the internet balancing speed and power to tackle lazy policies. How about Godspeeding together??

Value Tradeoffs

Content moderation, algorithm fairness, platform monopolies, cybersecurity, misinformation, data privacy, digital divide, accessibility, net neutrality- the list goes on. There are countless factors to weigh when considering internet governance.

This is why understanding value trade-offs becomes so vital. Balancing these elements requires careful consideration of competing priorities, recognizing that advancing one value might mean compromising another. It's a delicate dance that ultimately shapes the digital space we all share.

Calling back home to the ones who walk away from the “Digital Climate Change”

I cannot help but call out those who have walked away from platforms where they felt misunderstood, unacknowledged, or had their trust compromised.

Very similar to the ones who walked away from Omelas, in the beautiful science fiction piece written by Ursula K Le. Guin. In the story, some of the individuals in the city of Omelas, walk out guided by their unwavering moral compass expressing their discomfort in maintaining a flawed utopia at the cost of a child’s suffering. They feel helpless because it seemed impossible to do anything.?

Quite metaphorically, to lose such souls would be to lose the very essence of conscience that can create a more compassionate society. Calling them back home would mean addressing the difficult tradeoffs that have driven them away.?

As technology practitioners and leaders, its important to create a digital space where diverse ideals are acknowledged and the weighed ones are integrated into the fabric of our society. And as users of technology, it is also our duty to stay and fight for the injustice that could occur in the digital space because doing nothing or walking away also leaves a stain of injustice of indifference. So, I call them back home.

About time- to conclude!?

All in all, reflecting on values under the full moon today, I feel the world especially the digital space could use a lot more forgiveness.

Learning Forgiveness in Digital era and Global Conflicts

In light of the ongoing, irreconcilable conflicts between countries around the world, the confusion escalated in technology governance and misinformation, the subject of forgiveness is becoming increasingly relevant to our hopes of achieving global peace. In the digital age, where every action, statement, and mistake can be permanently recorded and widely disseminated, the practice of forgiveness takes on new significance. The permanence of digital footprints means that errors and missteps are often preserved indefinitely, leading to a culture where past mistakes can haunt individuals for years. This reality makes the act of forgiveness even more critical. Forgiving in the digital age may involve completely abolishing any feelings of resentment or retribution, understanding that everyone can be subject to errors captured and magnified by digital technology.

Modern reflections on forgiveness often explore its connections to ideas like love, faith, virtue, morality, justice, punishment, and reconciliation. While these conversations are complex and may require subtle examination based on individual situations, there is a common understanding that forgiveness represents a positive human reaction to the wrongful acts of others.?

Nature of Posting Online

While the nature of posting on social media largely seems highly impulsive and also age sensitive. Here is an interesting read about generation-specific online mistakes by Reputation Defender.?

Generations X and Y, who came of age before the explosion of social media, had to navigate this new landscape without any guidebook, leading to potentially rough missteps and a steep learning curve. In contrast, Generations Z, Alpha, and those yet to come born into a world where digital media and the internet are already deeply integrated into daily life. Although these younger generations face more complex challenges of living online, they benefit from a sort of "social media handbook" shaped by the experiences of older generations. They are free to cringe at their parent's online behaviour, using it as a lesson on what to avoid. However, how forgiving each generation is of online mistakes remains uncertain. Future generations may prove to be more forgiving, given their deeper digital footprints, both linked to real identities and anonymous personas.

Study shows up to 80% of employers and recruitment agencies use social media content as part of their assessment of candidate suitability. [The Conversation, 2022] On the practical side of things, this calls for owning our mistakes online and revisiting our digital footprints to make possible amends while on the forgiveness side of things, it also means as recruiters we need to broaden our judgement scale and infuse forgiveness in it.

Right to Rectification, Cancel Culture

The concept of forgiveness plays a complementary role to the right to rectification. The right to rectification, outlined in laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, allows individuals to have inaccurate or incomplete personal data corrected. This legal right acknowledges that people can change, grow, and learn from their mistakes, and it provides a mechanism for them to amend their digital footprints.

In many cases, even when digital records are corrected, the shadow of past actions can linger. Social stigmas and personal grudges can persist despite the factual rectification of data. Forgiveness helps to break this cycle by promoting a mindset of understanding and compassion. It encourages us to see beyond the static records of past actions and recognize the dynamic and evolving nature of human character.

Moreover, forgiveness can mitigate the effects of cancel culture, where individuals are often harshly judged and ostracized for past mistakes. While accountability is important, an unforgiving approach can stifle growth and learning. By promoting forgiveness, we allow individuals to learn from their errors, make amends, and contribute positively to society.

The Practicality of Forgiveness

But is forgiveness reasonable without acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the part of the transgressor???

Lets dissect “Repentance”?

A study conducted at? Buddhist Tzu-Chi University, Taiwan by Chien-Te Lin titled “With or Without Repentance: A Buddhist Take on Forgiveness” illustrates how forgiveness is viewed in cases where the transgressor has not confessed his or her transgression in an equation:

The study further states that all wrongdoing is rooted in ignorance and suffering therefore forgiveness is both an act of compassion towards another and a means to achieve self-transformation; and, we should be grateful to those who hurt us as they give us an opportunity to advance spiritually.?

Well, the practicality of forgiveness in the digital age extends beyond ethical and spiritual considerations, encompassing significant psychological and social benefits. Forgiveness can be looked at as a pragmatic response to the inevitable errors and misunderstandings that arise in our increasingly interconnected and transparent world.

Finally, my reflection note comes to an end with a realization there is so much more to dive deeper but this course has sparked a new passion for science fiction in me. It's inspired me to choose my next read:

If you have come this far reading, I appreciate your attention! Maybe leave me a note? Thank you!

Best

Princi