Perestroika 2.0

Some books are best to be read when you are around 15, 16 years old. Books like 1984, Don Juan, The Decameron, Metamorphosis… There is a magic chemistry going on in our young retinas, stirring naiveté, curiosity, eagerness, and delight.

One of the books that unexpectedly found its way into my juvenile hands was Perestroika, by Mikhail Gorbachev. I found it accidentally, its red and dusty cover caught my attention in my father’s home office (certainly a relic belonging to an idealistic man, who had lived under a capitalist dictatorship in Latin America). When I finished the book, I had more pride in my pretentious reading than comprehension. All that I could regurgitate was that Perestroika (reform) needed to walk side by side with Glasnost (transparency). They should be two sides of the same coin. The absence of one could collapse the whole system (as it eventually happened).

Today, the digital world is living its Perestroika moment. There’s potential for a revolution, marching under the Privacy banner, shaking the internet foundations and its balance of powers. In times of “social dilemma,” this can be a wonderful opportunity to hit refresh and fix some of the perverse incentives that have fueled part of the web economy. Nevertheless, since we are not 15 years old anymore, we cannot be na?ve and only believe in noble intentions that may camouflage other interests, potentially replacing some perverse incentives with others, further concentrating power in the digital world. We desperately lack - and who would think that old Gorbachev would get that this one right – more Glasnost in this Perestroika 2.0.    

The interest of consumers and the protection of their privacy have been used to justify substantial changes to how the internet works. Yet, it is ironic how little voice consumers have in this process, which will impact the costs and benefits of their digital lives. Companies write blog posts, manifestos, and even run ads to promote their point of view. You can choose sides, but you cannot have a say. In a perfect market, consumers could manifest their opinion by choosing between service A or device B. We know that this is not a fair or sustainable option here.

Enter the government and regulators. Can our elected officials represent our voice? As important as their role is – and they should not shy away from it – they need to catch up. As Tim O’Reilly explains in his book What The Future, there is a gap between the public and private sectors in their understanding of the digital economy. And we should always be mindful of how political interests and lobby from donors could disproportionally influence policy, limiting the public’s sway in the debate.

There are brilliant people in tech, government, and the ad ecosystem, with lots of good intentions. And it is great to see the progress in regulation, open-sourced proposals and efforts to research and refine the customer experience around data sharing. Still, most initiatives happen inside bubbles, without debate with the broader society. Do we really believe that overwhelming people with countless consent pop-ups is helping anyone to make informed decisions? Is assigning people to interest cohorts without transparency really better for everyone’s privacy? As a provoking thought, it would be helpful if the private and public sectors, besides investing in the next brilliant stratagem to protect user privacy, also allocated resources to build platforms for dialog and education, so innovative ideas have a shared purpose and can be consciously adopted. I know, it's easier said than done. It requires long term vision and short term agility. It sounds like a good challenge. Who is up for it?

Opinions are my own and not the views of any company or group.