Michael Forde’s Post

This is the final episode of a trilogy of critical conversations about the digital revolution. Earlier this week, Gary Marcus explained how to tame Silicon Valley’s AI barons. Then Mark Weinstein talked to us the reinvention of social media. And now we have the former member of the European Parliament & current Fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, Marietje Schaake, explaining how we can save democracy from Silicon Valley. In her provocative new book, Tech Coup, Schaake explains how, under the cover of “innovation,” Silicon Valley companies have successfully resisted regulation and have even begun to seize power from governments themselves. So what to do? For Marietje Schaake, in addition to government regulation, what we need is a radical reinvention of government so that our political institutions have the agility and intelligence to take on Silicon Valley.

This is the final episode of a trilogy of critical conversations about the digital revolution. Earlier this week, Gary Marcus explained how to tame Silicon Valley’s AI barons. Then Mark Weinstein talked to us the reinvention of social media. And now we have the former member of the European Parliament & current Fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, Marietje Schaake, explaining how we can save democracy from Silicon Valley. In her provocative new book, Tech Coup, Schaake explains how, under the cover of “innovation,” Silicon Valley companies have successfully resisted regulation and have even begun to seize power from governments themselves. So what to do? For Marietje Schaake, in addition to government regulation, what we need is a radical reinvention of government so that our political institutions have the agility and intelligence to take on Silicon Valley.

Published by Lawrence Lessig on January 1st, 2000. "Every age has its potential regulator, its threat to liberty. Our founders feared a newly empowered federal government; the Constitution is written against that fear. John Stuart Mill worried about the regulation by social norms in nineteenth-century England; his book On Liberty is written against that regulation. Many of the progressives in the twentieth century worried about the injustices of the market. The reforms of the market, and the safety nets that surround it, were erected in response. Ours is the age of cyberspace. It, too, has a regulator. This regulator, too, threatens liberty. But so obsessed are we with the idea that liberty means "freedom from government" that we don't even see the regulation in this new space. We therefore don't see the threat to liberty that this regulation presents. This regulator is code--the software and hardware that make cyberspace as it is. This code, or architecture, sets the terms on which life in cyberspace is experienced. It determines how easy it is to protect privacy, or how easy it is to censor speech. It determines whether access to information is general or whether information is zoned. It affects who sees what, or what is monitored. In a host of ways that one cannot begin to see unless one begins to understand the nature of this code, the code of cyberspace regulates. This regulation is changing. The code of cyberspace is changing. And as this code changes, the character of cyberspace will change as well. Cyberspace will change from a place that protects anonymity, free speech, and individual control, to a place that makes anonymity harder, speech less free, and individual control the province of individual experts only." It's worth finishing the read at Harvard Magazine.

As we envision the future of governance, let's apply this concept to AI governance in the Department of Defense. Transforming the DoD's PPBE process and AI governance requires fostering adaptability, collaboration, and long-term vision. This approach fosters the effective integration of emerging technologies while upholding ethical practices and maintaining strategic agility. At Marcantonio Global we are looking at deploying the most advanced adaptive acquisition frameworks leveraging all of the above.

Buckle up, folks! It's time to take a wild ride into the future of #governance. Whether you realize it or not, our current political and economic systems, born in the 18th century, are about as well-suited for the 21st century as a horse and buggy is for navigating the Autobahn. It's not about pitting capitalism against communism or democracy against autocracy – it's about creating something entirely new that aligns incentives and resists the siren call of hacking. Imagine a world where an #AI in your pocket votes on your behalf, thousands of times a day, based on your inferred preferences. A world where citizen assemblies, fueled by sortition and liquid democracy, replace the outdated model of representation. A world where cooperation trumps competition, and the goal is to create a game where everybody wins. It's a wild, blue-sky vision that challenges our assumptions about what's possible. But here's the catch: we can't just slap a high-tech band-aid on our current systems and call it a day. We need to fundamentally rethink the way we govern ourselves, from the individual level all the way up to the global scale. It's a challenge that requires the collective brainpower of security experts, technologists, and dreamers alike. The future of #democracy depends on it.

Great post, so I’m re-sharing. This is a very interesting read and some very thought provoking questions are posed in this piece. James Madison wrote about this in 1787, where he made two points. - One, that representatives serve to filter popular opinions, limiting extremism. - Two, that geographical dispersal makes it hard for those with extreme views to participate. It’s hard to organize. To be fair, these limitations are both good and bad. In any case, current technology — social media — breaks them both. So here is one question: What does representation look like in a world without either filtering or geographical dispersal? Or, How do we avoid polluting 21st century democracy with prejudice, misinformation and bias. Things that impair both the problem solving and feedback mechanisms. That’s the reallybinteresting issue. It’s not about misinformation, it’s about the incentive structure that makes misinformation a viable strategy. Give this some thought…… This matters.

Let’s work harder on #digitalconstitutionalism as a #safeharbor for our #digitalrights in the #hyperconnectedworld before it’s too late! 🗓️Mark your calendars - 5/9/2024, #Vilnius – Opening for signature : The Framework Convention on #AI and #HumanRights, #Democracy and the #RuleofLaw of the Council of Europe. https://lnkd.in/egpA4f8v?

What did the 👑 King's Speech 👑 mean for tech? and what are the main bits of legislation, from data reform, to cyber secuirty to planning that techUK members will be keeping an eye on? Check out this excellent summary from my colleagues Alice Campbell and Archie Breare below 👇 👇 And as always drop the techUK team a line if you have any questions. #KingsSpeech #NewGovernment #tech #techUK #UKtech #Parliament Department for Science, Innovation and Technology https://lnkd.in/eFiWAa84

Part 2: Modern Technology and the Challenges of Information Monopoly (2024-10-09)