Shaping A Social Democratic Digital Revolution
Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel
Social Democrats consider themselves to
be the party of social and technological progress. The political left
must therefore address digitisation as a policy issue. There must be no
doubt in our minds that our traditional values of freedom, justice and
solidarity continue to apply in the digital realm just as they do in our
analogue lives.
Our values and the influence they have run up against
limits, however, if we do not actively intervene. Whether they also
encounter limits if we take action is an open question in my view. The
shaping of the social market economy, the general conditions governing
it and the relations between power and individual freedom are also
affected by the changes arising from the digital world.
Let us take a look at the status quo.
The Internet as it is at the moment favours companies over individual
citizens. Companies know what we read, who we meet and where we happen
to be. The transparent citizen is a fact of life – for companies at
least. Data capitalism is omnipresent. Not only does it register what we
post or tweet. Amazon knows what page we have read three times on
Kindle. Spotify knows that we secretly listen to pop songs. Foursquare
knows where my favourite café is and who sits next to me. The individual
is transformed into a collection of data and links. His digital
identity becomes more important than his real-life identity,
irrespective of whether it corresponds with reality or not. The
individual is no longer a cultural being but a market being.
The German blogger, writer and journalist, Sascha Lobo, has gone so far as to say that
the Internet is finished, but the idea of digital networking is not.
The present construction of the net
restricts the opportunities we have to exert a democratic influence. It
raises the question of who wields power. We politicians do not determine
the rules of the game. Frank Schirrmacher, the late co-publisher of the
German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, summed up the situation as follows:
What we are looking at here is the power asymmetry of the modern era and the question of how it can be democratised without jeopardising the advantages it offers.
There is no reason to give up hope. We can win the Internet back. We can shape it. We can repair it.
Social Democrats have always aspired to
shape policy. We stand for education and participation, for progress and
improved conditions, for freedom, justice and solidarity. But what do
they mean for the online world?
Freedom: Freedom means having a share
and being able to participate. Everybody can develop, organise and make
direct contact. For years the concept of freedom gave us reason to
praise the Internet to the skies, until we woke up with a jolt. For
authoritarian regimes and security services learned how to control the
technology, blocked online networks and resorted to monitoring. Freedom
is also restricted with the help of search filters and privileged data.
Neutrality is ruled out. We must regain freedom in the digital realm.
Justice: For us, justice means access to
the Internet. Those who are offline are left behind. Those who are
online have undreamt-of possibilities. There is the threat here of a new
gap opening up between rich and poor, between online and offline, if
online services cost a lot of money. If safe communication with friends
is only possible when you can pay for it. If good job exchanges demand
large sums of money that people on income support perhaps cannot afford.
But justice is also a question of fair education and upward progression
– online and offline. We need digital education in schools, training
and professions. People must understand how computers work. What
digitisation means. Young and old alike. That is the way to ensure
justice.
Solidarity: Today solidarity often means
online political activism. Of course an online petition for better
refugee accommodation is a good idea. So is an appeal on Facebook
against PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the
West). The Internet provides tremendously important spaces for debate.
But we should use it more as a tool for real-life activism rather than
harnessing our resources online only. Solidarity also means community.
We cannot afford to lose our sense of genuine public good. The Internet,
by contrast, is very much focused on the individual. Ultimately, then,
you lose sight of the big picture behind it. The optimisation of the
individual by means of apps, but not everyone is in a position to become
fitter and healthier, faster and so on. Our social security systems are
geared to the public good – in health and in pensions. Mutual
solidarity shapes society. That is something we must achieve in the
digital world, too.
However, there is one thing we should
not lose sight of in the process. Behind the digital identity is a
real-life person, an individual who can lose his or her footing. Can we
really lead self-determined lives if we are confronted wherever we go
with facts and data, opinions and transparency? Today we can largely do
what we want to do. And become the people we want to become. That is
what the Internet promises us at least. But it is becoming progressively
more difficult to find out what that actually means in practice.
Harmonising digital and real-life
identity, mapping out personal wishes and targets, creating motivation
and satisfaction is getting more and more difficult in the brave new
online world. We politicians must create safe spaces in which there is
room for opinions but also uncertainties. In which questions can be put.
In which users have confidence. If people cannot find their identity,
there is no point us talking about who owns the digital share of it.
We, therefore, need a world which gives
people sufficient freedom to find themselves. Which creates sufficient
justice to make upward social progress possible. Which creates
solidarity not just by means of clicks and likes. The vision mapped out
in Dave Eggers’ The Circle is certainly not a vision I consider desirable.
I see the solution first and foremost in
education and the fostering of diversity. We need properly educated
citizens who know there are search engines which do not collect data.
Who use messengers that transmit encrypted news. Who use different
providers in order to avoid becoming transparent citizens. The more data
are spread across different servers the better. We need citizens who
say quite clearly: That’s not for me! Who show companies the cold
shoulder. People who can decide for themselves who uses their data. The
provider with the best protection. We need diversity and not monopolies.
That is the starting point for political regulation.
Social democratic policies must ensure
good general conditions. That means greatly improved digital education
and the systematic extension of media-based teaching.
With campaigns and
education and with comprehensive data protection regulations which make
it possible for data to be properly deleted or passed on. We need
improvements in cartel and competition law. And we must promote
start-ups that aim to win back the “good Internet”.
These are not so much visions as real
steps. But they have a clearly defined objective: citizens’ power. All
power emanates from the people – there can be nothing more democratic
than that. Behind this lies a notion which entails a development away
from transparent citizens to sovereign citizens. Our data belong to us.
We must make sure that is the case once again in the future.
For me there can only be progress in this respect. As the German philosopher and journalist, Gerhard Szczesny, once said:
Being educated means not being afraid of yourself.
That is something we, too, should bear
in mind in our debates on digitisation. We must make sure that we are
not marked by fear of the Internet, but by confidence in it. We have
values we stand up for. We have an objective we pursue. All we need now
are the best solutions.
This is the transcript of a speech
delivered in Berlin in December 2014 at a ‘philosophy meets politics’
event of the Kulturforum der Sozialdemokratie.
No comments:
Post a Comment