Is Technology Destroying Democracy?

Hans Kundnani

And welcome to Chatham House. Welcome back, for those of you that are regulars, for this panel discussion, which launches what we think is a very exciting new project at Chatham House on democracy and technology in Europe, that’s going to run over the next six months or so. We’re going to be exploring the impact that the development of digital technology is having on democracy in Europe and we’re going to be thinking about how democracy in Europe, or democracies in Europe, perhaps I should say, can be reinvigorated and updated against the background of this technological change that’s happening. And finally, we’re going to be thinking about what role technology itself can play in that process of reinvigorating and updating democracy. I say it’s an exciting project, partly because of the issues themselves, I think it’s fairly self-explanatory that these are really important, urgent issues, that a lot of people are talking about at the moment, but we’re also excited about it because of the process.

We’ve come up with what we think is an innovative research process, certainly for Chatham House, but I think, actually, for think tanks in general. We’ve brought together 15 leading figures from around Europe, and we have three of them on the panel today: Francesca, Julia and Guillaume, as I say, from different backgrounds, different parts of Europe, hopefully, with very different perspectives, and their role is going to be to lead and steer this research process, but to complement that commission model, we’ve developed what we think is an innovative, much more open online research process, where we’re encouraging other people to take part, to contribute their ideas, not just as submissions in the way that commissions often have worked in the past, but actually, then, in another phase of the process, to actually take part in discussions through our website, and actually begin to shape the ideas that will make their way into the final research report, which we’re hoping to launch in September. So, we very much hope that some of you will take part in that part of the process as well, and contribute your ideas to the project.

There’ll also be a series of panel discussions. This is very much the first in a series of events we’ll be having at Chatham House on different aspects of the relationship between democracy and technology in Europe, and there’ll be other members of the Commission taking part in some of those. So we hope to see you at some of those events as well. Is Technology Destroying Democracy? If we were to have – if we were to have had this discussion about the relationship between democracy and technology, let’s say, seven or eight years ago, I think we might have phrased the question in a much more optimist kind of way, something like, Is technology going to liberate humanity? Is the technology going to democratise the world? We seem to have gone, in that space of time, from a very optimistic view about the role of technology in relation to democracy, to a very pessimistic view, almost in a, kind of manic-depressive mood swing, it seems to me. What we’re going to try to do on the panel today is bring some nuance to that. I’m guessing that all of our panellists, all of whom use technology, work with technology in different ways, I’m assuming that none of them is going to give a very, very straightforward, “Yes,” to that question that we’ve set, but I’m hoping, also, that the answers are going to be very different from each other, and we’ll have a little bit of discussion amongst ourselves, and then I want to open it up, as soon as possible, for you to comment and ask questions as well.

Why don’t we start with you, Francesca? Let me just put that question very simply to you. Is technology destroying democracy?

Francesca Bria

First of all, great to be here. Thank you for the invitation, and I think it’s absolutely crucial and urgent to have this conversation, and to forge alliances, to look at the path forward. So, I think we were discussing, just before the panel, that it would be very nice if someone just replied, “Yes,” and so we can get the conversation started, but I think it’s a bit more complex than that. So, obviously, say, a binary answer, it’s not what we’re looking for. I think, first of all, we have to start understanding, and I think we are getting there, that when we talk about technology, it’s not a technocratic topic. It is not about technology only, it is about how technology is shaping the social economic system that we live in, and it has very strong implication in how we shape Governments, the geopolitics and the future economic system. And, obviously, democracy is part of that.

So, we are definitely in urge to revitalise democracy, and also, we observe – so, I’m a Chief Technology Officer in Barcelona, and we work at a local level, in a city, and what we observe very strongly is this very strong lack of trust of political institution from citizens at large, and many citizens, let’s say, have lost hopes in their political system, but also in the – broadly, in the financial system, and in the corporate world. So, many people just don’t expect the answer, and don’t expect a political institution to be solving the problems that they really care about. And I think we need to avoid this situation, where part of this lack of trust is also a crisis of political representation, the crisis of parliaments, political parties and democratic institutions. And so, what we are doing to give an alternative answer that is not what we are seeing more and more across the world, which is the right of – the rise of right-wing nationalisms, and people feeling disenfranchised or falling off, and start voting right-wing populists that are rising to power. We are trying to provide a different answer to this lack of trust and disenfranchisement, which is a, generally, participatory democracy.

So, I think that, basically, the answer to this crisis shouldn’t be the political system to become less open, less transparent, and to – and corrupt, because this is why, also, a lot of people were protesting, but is basically to try and shape a different form of democracy that put, really, people at the centre. And that’s why, probably, I believe that cities are a great place to start, because cities are the place where people live in, where they have tangible problems, affordable housing, and the fight against climate change, sustainability, the future of jobs, energy transition. It really affects how the people live, and this is a place where we can be closest with the citizens and experiment new forms of democratic participation.

Just, maybe, to end this, like, first intervention, I think technology is a crucial part there, and, obviously, there are lots of things that are not working with the extreme social and market and economic power that the tech sector is acquiring, in particular in the last years, and this concentration, maybe unparalleled concentration of power, obviously posing – it’s posing a lot of challenges. That’s why we hear a lot about the techlash, that’s why we have lots of pressures for the tech companies when it comes to taxation, when it comes to international trade, when it comes to data leaka – data leaks and privacy, and also, the rules of democracy, as such.

And so, I believe that there is a lot of changes that need to happen there, but in particular, for instance, in Barcelona, we are proposing different forms of a platform for democratic participation. Let me just say that digital democracy doesn’t exist, it’s a myth, so it’s never only digital. Facebook democracy doesn’t exist, it is a problem, so we need to always mix, we need hybrids that are hybrids between, I think, a representative democracy and more elements of direct democracy. So, we’re integrating, for instance, citizen initiatives, participatory budgeting, referendum into the – all the tools that we have at our disposals to engage citizens, and then it is a hybrid between digital democracy, which has to have very strong rules for – in particular – I’m going to stop.

Hans Kundnani

No, no, no.

Francesca Bria

A lot of rules, in particular, about democratic governance of platforms, and in particular around data. I’m sure we’re going to talk a lot about that. I believe data sovereignty is a fundamental political issue for the future. And then this has to be a hybrid between digital democracy and participation, real participation in the neighbourhoods where people are, with diversity, different socioeconomic backgrounds, gender, different ethnic backgrounds, and try to be inclusive in the way we practice democracy. And I think this new participatory democracy should be the alternative to the rise of right-wing nationalism.

Hans Kundnani

Fantastic. There’s a lot there that I want to come back to. We might want to come back to this question of whether direct – more direct democracy is part of the problem or the solution. I think in this country, against the background of Brexit, some people might say that it’s the introduction of elements of direct democracy that has, to some extent, undermined the normal representative democratic system, but let me push you on the role of technology, specifically. Are you suggesting that technology is, kind of, neutral, that it can play a positive or a negative role in democracy, and if so, depending on what – what does it depend on?

Francesca Bria

No, it is not neutral. I’m suggesting the opposite. I’m saying that, in particular, if we look at the immense power that the technology firms have today, obviously, we cannot say it is neutral. I mean, we have to say that it is not neutral, and it should be shaped according to the rules, and to the type of political and social system that we want. So, for instance, competition, anti-trust, taxation, rules around data sovereignty, data access, transparency, all of that should be part of a framework, which, I think, in this respect, although the narrative is very much we have the digital supremacy, divided into two camps, the US, Silicon Valley here, and the Chinese – the rise of the Chinese champions here. I do think Europe is the only place where we’re putting forward the different framework for the digital society that’s people centric and rights-based. And I hope, and I have trust, or at least, you know, with a lot of difficulties, maybe, I mean, this is where we need a conversation that we can shape this forward. And let me also say one thing about participatory democracy, I absolutely don’t think that participatory democracy and civic engagement can happen, using commercial platforms that are designed, and they have at the core of their business model the manipulation and commercial exploitation of personal information and data. I think this is a problem, it is a very big problem, and I think we need alternative. Also, digital infrastructures for political participation that are more decentralised, privacy announcing and protect people fundamental rights.

Hans Kundnani

Right. I mean, this brings to mind the new Shoshana Zuboff book on surveillance capitalism, which I think everybody’s talking about, and seems to be very much the – structuring the discussion at the moment, but let me, just, again, just push you. So, are you suggesting – you know, technology itself is not the problem, the problem is concentration of power, that power is concentrated – that the technology’s being used for commercial purposes, and in particular, concentrated in the hands of big tech companies. Is that the problem?

Francesca Bria

Well, this is a big problem.

Hans Kundnani

Okay. I mean, I’m going to be interested to hear Jon, who’s our one big tech representative on the panel, here, on that. Before I come to you, though, Jon, Julia, you use technology in a completely different way, for a party, the Pirate Party, that has been at the forefront of, sort of, innovating, using technology as part of a – in a way, some of the similar things that you were talking about, in terms of participatory democracy, but at level of parties. How does this look to you, and maybe you could also say something about the role, which, again, Francesca has touched on, the role of the EU…

Julia Reda

Right.

Hans Kundnani

…in this?

Julia Reda

Yes. Thanks a lot for having me participate in this discussion, and, obviously, I’m somewhat biased as a representative of a party that has the goal of using technology for the empowerment of the people. So, in that sense, we, kind of, naturally take an optimistic stance towards technology, but we also recognise that technology is not going to automatically enhance democracy, because it is not neutral, and it needs to be shaped and governed. And I think what is perhaps forgotten, in this rather pessimistic debate that we’re having at the moment, which is focusing very much on how technology, or the internet in particular might be abused by certain groups to undermine democracy, is that the positive elements that are reinvigorating democracy that we are seeing at the moment are also using the internet. So, in Europe, you have the students’ protest against climate change that are springing up in cities all over the continent, that are of course using the internet for mobilisation, for organising.

In the United States, you have Black Lives Matter, you have the Parkland students, and all of these social movements are using the internet as a vital tool for organisation and participation, and so, I would perhaps put a caveat to the statement that this cannot happen at all on commercial platforms. I mean, it is happening, but I think it’s very important that we do not put the possibility, or the power to give this public space solely into the hands of companies, because the state has to be able to provide an arena for democracy, and for new social movements to emerge, and to participate in the democratic process.

So, I think, in a way, saying that democracy could be destroyed by technology is perhaps a bit the wrong angle. I mean, the first question we’re going to have to ask ourselves is, “Is democracy going to prevail?” and there I think this is basically up to us, and whether we manage to preserve democracy or not, I think either way, technology is going to play a hugely important role in it, because it is changing every aspect of our society in the same way that the steam engine did a while ago. I think when we are talking about elements of direct democracy, I would like to, perhaps, add to the example of Brexit, that here we are talking about a referendum where laws were actually broken. So, I think sometimes we have already laws in place that just need to be enforced, in order to address some of the possibly negative elements that we’re seeing, and this is, I think, the case in other areas as well, when we’re talking about competition, Data Protection. Where we do have legislation in place, in some cases that is not being enforced in the areas where it would be important.

Now, you asked me specifically about the EU’s role. I mean, I do believe that regulating technology is necessary, in order to make sure that it benefits the people. It can be something very basic, like net neutrality. If you don’t regulate that you’re not going to preserve the internet as an open space. Data Protection is also part of that, but, increasingly, we are seeing, in the policy processes in Brussels, that they are very strongly captured by commercial interests, and those are not solely the interest of technology companies. Certainly, they play a big role as well, but you have the huge political power of telecommunications companies that are very strong and large within Europe, companies like Telefónica, Deutsche Telekom, but also, large media companies that don’t necessarily like this technological development very much, because it has spread the power over public opinion, a power that, before, was more concentrated in the hands of traditional media companies, and they’re not necessarily happy with this change. So, I think, primarily, digital technology is a change accelerator, and that is challenging democracy and traditional democratic institutions, because they have to become more agile, more accountable, and this is not necessarily what is happening in the EU decision-making process around technology at the moment.

Hans Kundnani

That’s – okay, that’s very interesting. So, I want to come back to the EU in a minute, but just let me go back to this question of the neutrality of the technology, or otherwise, ‘cause I think this is important. You pointed out, you know, there are some social movements that we, on the panel, might see as being much more positive, you know, than some others that are also using the same technological tools to mobilise, and so on, which, again, sort of suggests that the tools themselves are, kind of, politically neutral, as it were. It’s just a question of, you know, whether you sympathise with Black Lives Matter or the Tea Party, you know? But then, other people argue that there is something inherent about the technology, particularly social media, that is corrosive of democracy, that it’s producing certain kinds of emotive, kind of, politics, that are actually very, very dangerous in and of themselves.

Julia Reda

The technology is not neutral as such, but it’s neither good nor bad, taken for itself, which I think is a different thing than to say that it’s neutral, but I think, nevertheless, there are also some themes that are, you know, talked about in how social media are changing society that are not necessarily true. For example, this idea of a filter bubble, that using social media reinforces messages that you already believe in. There is very little academic evidence to actually back that up. By and large, people are more well informed about what’s going on in the world than they were, perhaps, 20 years ago. I think where you do have a problem is where, increasingly, the information you access online, the line between information and advertising is being blurred, and that’s, I think, a much bigger problem, especially in a democratic space.

Like, I think, of course, political parties are going to use advertising, to a certain extent, but should we allow it, that the same political party is allowed to essentially send completely different and contradictory messages to different parts of the population, not based on what the party actually stands for, but based on what they think I want to hear? Because I think political parties should not be enterprises that try to trick people into voting for them, but they should primarily be representing an ideological – ideology or a political idea, and should be transparent about communicating that to the outside. And if we don’t regulate targeted advertising, I think that might be a problem for democracy, because it allows parties to tell everybody exactly what they think they want to hear.

Hans Kundnani

So, if regulation is the solution to this, you know, the EU has taken a fairly aggressive approach, in terms of regulating the internet. You’ve pointed out the dangers there of the way that regulation works being informed by commercial interests, rather than the public interest, but is there not also a danger that what this does is it leads to a, kind of, a fragmentation of the internet? And Wendy Hall, who’s one of our other members of our Commission has a paper she wrote recently about the four internets that are emerging and the European Internet is one of them. Is there not a danger that the free flow of data is, kind of, hindered by this attempt by the EU to regulate the internet, and social media in particular?

Julia Reda

I think there is a danger of fragmentation of the internet, but that’s not necessarily happening because of the EU. I think it’s happening because of a lot of developments that you see all over the world, and, I mean, in some cases, I think the regulation that is coming out of the EU is also trying to set global standards, rather than trying to shield themselves off from the rest of the world. I think we rather have a problem with equality of legislation on technological topics, where, basically, this huge corporate power over the decision-making process means that academic evidence is not being listened to when we pass legislation, and we have a lot of legislative proposals on the table around technology that would actually make the problem worse.

Hans Kundnani

Yeah. Interesting to see Jon nodding a lot here. We come now to our, sort of, two tech industry representatives, although, Guillaume, a minute ago, when we were talking, you said you’re not big tech, but you’re growing tech. You worked on the Obama campaign, and then applied, as I understand it, some of the techniques that the Obama campaign used to the Macron campaign. What’s your take on this whole question of the relationship between democracy and technology?

Guillaume Liegey

So, you’re very kind, you didn’t mention my role in the Hollande campaign, which I’m very grateful, and thank you very much. Yeah, if you don’t mind, I’ll just give a bit more context about who I am, and that may explain the position I’m going to take about the role of technology and its impact on democracy. So, I’m a tech entrepreneur. I’m the CEO of LMP, and what we do, our work, is to use data and technology to solve a big problem, which is understand what people really think, and then try to change their mind. So, we do that for political parties and corporation. Just to give you an example, we have a lot of infrastructure clients, and when you build a bridge, an airport, a road, a wind farm, then you need to make sure that the population will accept the project locally, otherwise people will oppose and demonstrate, not only in France. So, you need to understand what people think locally, and then you need to understand how you’re going to convince them of the benefits of the project. So, that’s what we do with corporations, but we also work for political parties, as Hans mentioned. By the way, I’m – I completely forgot to thank you for having me here today. French people are so impolite. So, thank you very much.

So, I said, yes, we did work for political parties, and now technology has been used by a bit more now than a 1,000 campaigns in six European countries, and the Philippines, and sometime people work with us, become French Presidents, it does happen, but more often, they lose the election. They gain votes, but they lose the election, or they become Mayors, MPs, or, you know, locally elected officials. So, what does it mean when I say that we use data and technology to convince people? It means two things. First of all, if you want to convince people, you have to know what they think, you have to capture public opinion, and that’s super different because – I like the image of public opinion as an iceberg, you know? It’s very easy to know what people at the tip of the iceberg think, but the silent majority is below the water, and you have to understand what the silent majority think, otherwise, you know, things like the gilets jaunes crisis may actually happen. So, that’s the first part, understanding public opinion as a whole, and the second part is making sure that you’re going to reach out to them effectively to change their mind, and the best way to do that is to have a face-to-face conversation. So, a human-to-human conversation, face-to-face.

I’m literally talking about what Obama did, then Hollande and Macron, which is you sent millions, or, you know, in the case of France, thousands of people knocking at doors to engage with voters. That’s the best way to change people’s mind. And that’s when technology becomes interesting, because you can scale up a campaign with technology, but you still need, you know, human beings to have those conversations. And the reason I’m giving you this context is because I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of fake promises about the power of technology. And, you know, to be fair, I’m a tech Entrepreneur, so, I mean, I should be telling you that. Yes, technology has a huge impact, is amazingly powerful, and you press a button, and then suddenly, millions of voters will support your candidate. Well, that’s not that simple, fortunately.

There’s been a lot of things said about the impact of technology to influence foreign elections, to empower people, to change people’s mind, and, you know, the problem is that, no, technology is not a magic stick, and I’ll give you two personal example to illustrate that. So, one has to do with when I became a volunteer for Barack Obama, and the other one is about a recent campaign I ran in France for Emmanuel Macron. So, in 2008, I was a younger West Wing fan, who went to America to study at Harvard, and I was off – I mean, only to join the Obama campaign. The problem is I was French, with a super strong French accent, which may still be here today, a little bit, and I wanted to join the campaign, but I didn’t know anyone in the campaign. And that’s when technology made it possible for me, a young Frenchmen, with no connection with the Democratic party, to join the campaign. So, I simply registered on Obama’s website, and that connected me to someone who was living in my neighbourhood, and that person gave me a call, and asked me to join the campaign to knock at doors. And it was an amazing experience, even though I was told not to say I was French, because we went to New Hampshire, and New Hampshire people, they still haven’t forgiven French people for not fighting in Iraq with America, a long time ago.

So, I was – you know, I knocked at doors pretending I was a Dutch person. Yes, because I’m tall, and, apparently, French accent and Dutch accent, in the ears of people in New Hampshire, look alike – sound alike. So, that’s my first experience. Without technology, I would never have been able to join the Obama campaign, never, and my experience was the experience of literally, 1.5 million other volunteers, and that’s made it possible for Obama and his team to knock at, I think, over 30 million doors. You may have more accurate numbers, but – and, you know, win the election. So, that’s my first experience. The other experience is with Macron. So, my company has been working with En Marche!, but I was involved, on a personal level, long before Macron started his party, to help him, you know, launch En Marche!, and Macron had an intuition. He thought that France – people – Politician did not understand France. Politicians were only viewing the tip of the iceberg, and Macron wanted to run with a simple message. “I want to know what the whole country think, not only people who have access to Politicians, or people who are influencers, everyone, including people who may not like me, including people who may vote for populist candidates.” So, what did he do? He said, “We have to find a way to break the bubbles,” you know, break the political bubbles, and he organised something that was called La Grande Marche.

So, it translates into The Great Walk. Nothing to do with Mao Zedong thing and a long time ago. The Great Walk was simply a door-to-door campaign launched one year before the French Presidential election, not to convince people to support Macron, but to listen to them. And all the data collected by volunteers were then used to build a diagnostic of the country, but not the diagnostic that you would see from a Parisian perspective, the diagnostic of what the silent majority of French people would say. And if you talk about it, if you followed Beto, the news, we had something called the yellow vest crisis. I did read mine in the cloakroom upstairs, but – and you could say, “But Macron, what’s wrong with them? I mean, if you knew what French people think, what happened?” I reread the report that was produced by – on this operation. All the complaints made by the gilets jaunes are in the report, okay? Technology and data, and human beings listening to people made it possible to know what was, you know, what French people were thinking deep inside, and then you have another human factor, called a candidate becoming President, but I’m not going to comment on this.

Hans Kundnani

Okay. So – but it sounds, Guillaume, like your experiences have made you more optimistic about the potential for technology?

Guillaume Liegey

I think it’s like every problem. You know, if you understand it properly, then you can try to address the issues. The problem with technology is that, in 2008, when I – before I joined the Obama campaign, everything I was reading about the campaign was that technology was magic, that social network would change everything, that, just with a simple click, you could reach out to millions of people and change their mind, and that’s not true. It’s a beautiful promise, but it simply doesn’t work, it’s not that simple.

My point is that my experience has been to use technology to organise face-to-face conversation, and I believe this should be an – it’s an important dimension of politics, you know, to be able to engage face-to-face with Politicians, notably because we all live in bubbles. So, we all live in our own bubble. I live in the, you know, my friends are Tech Entrepreneur, who tend to went to great universities. I’m sure you know a lot of European Politicians now. You may – I mean, I know you know a lot of Catalan people now. No, jokes aside, my point is, we live in bubble, and I saw technology as a tool to break this bubble, and make it possible for people who have different backgrounds to start talking again to each other, and, yes, that makes me optimistic.

Hans Kundnani

Okay. So, Jon, as I say, you were nodding, shaking your head at certain other aspects of it, so I’m curious to get your take in general, but, I mean, but…

Jon Steinberg

I should’ve come as a mannequin with no facial expression.

Hans Kundnani

Not at all. It seems to me, though, there are these, sort of, two sets of criticisms directed at, in particular, Google and Facebook. It seems to me the first is this, kind of, whole idea of surveillance capitalism, which Shoshana Zuboff has been writing about, and she does argue that this begins with Google, actually, but it’s particularly a Google and Facebook, kind of, issue. But then, secondly, you know, beyond the, sort of, current state of the technology, focusing particularly on social media and the role that that’s played in that political discourse, and so on, seems to me there’s also this worry about the next stage of technological development, particularly around AI. And so, Yuval Noah Harari, for example, talking about the way that – what is this going to do is essentially strip us as human beings of our agency, and, sort of, undermine democracy in an even more radical way. Do you think there is – I mean, is there – from your perspective, working at Google, is there anything to these criticisms, or are they just wrong?

Jon Steinberg

Well, the – of course there’s is valid criticism, and I think that both of the arguments that you’ve brought up, or the critiques that you brought up merit, debate and discussion, and that’s why I’m also happy to be here to take part…

Hans Kundnani

For which we’re grateful.

Jon Steinberg

…in this panel. I think that the bits that I was particularly nodding along vigorously with my colleagues, here, is that we have a tendency, in society, to think that things are either all good or all bad. And I think, in our lives, we know through our experience, that neither is true, that all things are – virtually nothing is all good or all bad. And so, when it comes to technology, I think that we’re on this pendulum where we started, if you think back ten or 15 years ago, particular – particularly, and I’m thinking particu – of the Arab Spring, you know, unbelievable role of technology, it’s democratising society, it’s bringing down oligarchs and tyrants. It was, you know, because of Twitter and Facebook that Egypt is changing. Well, that wasn’t true then, nor is it true today, that social media is corrupting all democratic processes. We ju – I think we need to be more thoughtful.

Hans Kundnani

But you accept it’s corrupting them in some ways?

Jon Steinberg

What I accept is that technology is a tool by which actors of all kinds can have an influence, and so people who seek to use technology as a tool, like they have used mass media, or direct mail, or door knocking, or leafletting, or phone calls, or push polling, or a variety of other political campaign techniques, can be used for bad. Do I accept that social media on its own is corrupting democracy? No, I do not accept that.

Hans Kundnani

But – sorry, go on.

Jon Steinberg

And I think that, if I may, I think that with the way that – and Google is not a social media company. I’m not going to defend Facebook and Twitter and other social media platforms, that’s not fun, and it’s not my role. And I – so, I think if you think about what Google does, and – which is about trying to help people find – get access to information, is technology, in the sense of increasing access to information, good for democracy? I think that – not – it may not be universally true, but there is no doubt that increasing voter’s access to information should be a good thing, not only because it’s expanded citizens’ access to information, but because it’s also expanded and diversified those who get to broadcast information, and we’re no longer intermediated by a small number of actors. There are new voices and new systems of distribution, and I think that that – it’s not universally good, but I think that there are very positive things out of that. And that really is my fundamental point here, is that technology is not, in itself, deterministic of its role on democracy. It’s inherently a social exercise. We decide for ourselves the role that technology plays in how we access and consume information as individuals and a society.

Hans Kundnani

So, this is, in a sense, what I was driving at with the neutrality point. You’re suggesting that the platforms, the technology are themselves basically neutral. Bad people can use them in the same way that good people can use them…

Jon Steinberg

I want to be very clear, but if I think…

Hans Kundnani

…there’s nothing structural about…

Jon Steinberg

Look, I think that there was a distinction made before, which I think is an important one, is technology itself neutral? Yes. Is the – do individual companies play a role that is necessarily neutral? I don’t know, I think that’s an interesting question…

Hans Kundnani

Okay.

Jon Steinberg

…and I think that is a separate question to whether or not technology, you know, in its entirety, is neutral, and I think in its entirety it is neutral, and we, as businesses, as regulators, as members of society, have a role to play in shaping the way that that technology impacts us.

Hans Kundnani

And that brings me, in a way, to Francesca’s point there. I mean, is the, sort of, bigness of big tech, in other words, the concentration of power a problem? Do you think that it’s a problem that Google and Facebook and others, have too much power?

Jon Steinberg

No. I mean, what am I supposed to say?

Hans Kundnani

And let me ask…

Jon Steinberg

Am I – I’m not going to defend Facebook, but do I think that we have too much power? No, I do not think we have too much power, and I think that if we are accused of having too much power, there are existing channels by which those complaints are brought. We see that happening all the time. Google is currently, you know, working very closely with the competition authorities in Brussels, on a number of matters. So, you know, is the – like, you know, these are important questions.

Hans Kundnani

Do you think that tech, specifically big tech, needs to be regulated more strongly than it has been thus far?

Jon Steinberg

I think that we are open to the discussion about the role that regulation can play. I think when it comes to these issues, and I have been very closely involved in the formation of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, that we have to be very thoughtful about where regulation itself can play a role, because, when it comes to disinformation, we are largely talking about legal content, and I think it is a – I’m not – I don’t pose this challenge to say, “Don’t try,” but I think it is a serious challenge for regulators, in any jurisdiction, to regulate the access to content which is legal, and I think that we all should be nervous about asking regulators to play a role as a ministry of truth. At the – in the same way, we should be nervous about asking technology companies to play that role.

Hans Kundnani

Do you think that there is a clash coming, and then I’ll open to the audience, and do you think there is a clash coming between the, sort of, American version of an open internet, where freedom of speech is very much the foundational basis of it, versus a European Internet where privacy concerns and other concerns are much more central?

Jon Steinberg

So, first of all, I don’t think that’s new, that there’s a difference in values. I don’t think – I think that difference in values is sometimes over…

Hans Kundnani

Exaggerated.

Jon Steinberg

Exaggerated, thank you, and I think that there’s no doubt that the European Union has been a step ahead, but I don’t think that the status quo in America is going to remain in the short-to-medium-term anyway.

Hans Kundnani

Okay, great. I don’t – unless any of you want to jump in here, briefly?

Francesca Bria

I might. I have more…

Hans Kundnani

Go ahead, Francesca.

Francesca Bria

Well, my first comment is in all this conversation we kept defining technology. We talk about technology…

Hans Kundnani

Yes, a very fair point.

Francesca Bria

…as something, you know, technology, the internet, very abstract, what it is, a bunch of protocols, a bunch of infrastructure is very vague. So, I think that the problem, and what we’re trying to discuss here, is that it’s not just a tool. I mean, it’s a $3 trillion industry, in terms of evaluation, and the concentration, the market power, and the concentration of power there, is extreme. I mean, we probably have seven companies in the planet, and I’m being generous here, I mean, four from the US and the rest from China, which are…

Hans Kundnani

And none from Europe.

Francesca Bria

And none from Europe, by the way. So, I hope the UK, you guys still feel part of Europe, that, basically, are going to dominate, you know, the future of our industry, and also shaping, you know, power immensively, and I’m talking about artificial intelligence, but also, data and mass-scale computation, and infrastructures, which are fundamental for, you know, our economy, our industry, and our society. So, I think that’s where we have a problem, and we should discuss it, but anyways, the data, these are the data, and I think, actually, you talk about Europe being strongly regulating, and I think it’s gently, very gentle into, kind of, proposing a framework, which are laws, by the way, and in this, I defend the approach of a law-based regulation. So, if you don’t have laws, you cannot enforce these laws. So, when it comes to anti-trust and competition, I think it’s important to rethink anti-trust in the digital era. It is important to enforce taxation, because why tech company don’t have to pay taxes as everybody else? And I think when it comes to Data Protection, privacy, encryption and our sovereignty over our self-determination, in self-information, determination, I think it’s a very solid framework that we have in Europe, with laws that enforce that. So, I think, basically, we have to…

Hans Kundnani

Go further.

Francesca Bria

Yes, yeah. I just wanted to comment on one point. I do think that Google has too much power, sorry, but I also think that so does Volkswagen, so does Reed Elsevier, so does Telefónica, or Heckler & Koch, or Axel Springer, but I think we seem to be more concerned about it if it’s an American tech company than if it’s a European, kind of, traditional industry company.

Hans Kundnani

But isn’t it, also, partly, because, in a sense, they’re kind of like utilities, aren’t they? I mean, platforms are a little bit like utilities?

Francesca Bria

Yeah, but so is internet access, and there you basically have two or three companies that are dominating the market in Europe, and that have immense power over policymaking, so…

Julia Reda

But there, there are rules which are a bit more clear.

Hans Kundnani

Right.

Francesca Bria

Well, yeah. I mean, I think that, quite often, you do need to regulate, I just think that we should be careful not to fall into a trap where we are mistaking criticism of capitalism, with criticism of technology.

Hans Kundnani

Yes, yes, but what’s interesting, though, about the Shoshana Zuboff book is that she brings the two together, in a sense. Okay, let’s take some questions and comments, the lady there at the back, in the back row, yes. And if you could say who you – sorry, this lady here, in front, yeah. If you could say who you are, and not just the Chatham House affiliation, and speak into the microphone, thank you.

Lucy Blythe

Right. Lucy Blythe, Member of Chatham House. I was intrigued by Francesca’s comment. Sorry, I run a consultancy called Philia International.

Hans Kundnani

Thank you.

Lucy Blythe

Intrigued by Francesca’s comment about starting with cities, because, on most continents, and we’ve seen the evidence of it in the US, Europe and Africa, there seems to be greater demand for democracy in cities, and the real challenge is in – outside the cities. So, I’m – my question for the panel at large is, what can we do to help the areas outside cities have more access and engagement?

Hans Kundnani

That’s interesting, ‘cause it does go to this urban-rural divide that actually plays a role in the whole populism debate. Let’s take a couple more, and then we’ll come back to you. The gentleman here in front, yeah. Sorry, behind you, thank you.

Alex Folkes

Thank you. My name’s Alex Folkes, and as well as being a Chatham House Member I’m an election observer on behalf of the EU and OSCE. One of the things that we see all the time is the impact that’s online campaigning, and especially social media have on election campaigns, and it’s different in every country in the world, can’t generalise too much, but there is that impact. My concern is that – Jon does not represent Facebook, of course, that Facebook, in particular, are now deigning to allow some sort of monitoring of what they – what is done via their platform, but it is in their gift to allow that to happen. One of the concerns I have is that the laws of the country, and each country has different laws, some are better, some are worse, but we aren’t seeing the technology companies acceding to the laws of the country. What they’re doing is trying to create a globalised, “We will give you this,” type aspect to it, and I just wondered whether you, the panel, felt that there can be more insistence that, when it comes to things like elections, the tech companies play by the national laws, rather than their own perceived, “What we percei – what we’re willing to give.”

Hans Kundnani

Okay, and then, maybe, the gentleman right at the front, and just in front of you, yeah.

John Warren

Thank you. John Warren, Physician and Member. Of course, commerce and politics are in the same game, they’re in the market to get power. They’re using campaigns and advertising, politics to get the vote, and commerce to get the money, so it’s not surprising that they overlap. Isn’t the main problem, though, a matter of rate of change? So, the commerce – so, technology has moved so quickly, law and regulation have moved slowly, and enforcement have moved really slowly.

Hans Kundnani

Right. So, urban-rural, tech companies and the law, and I might add to that this idea that goes back to Lawrence Lessig, I think, that code is law, that, actually, by, you know, that law is increasingly being embedded in code, and so the tech companies are, in a sense, creating laws. Maybe that’s for you, Jon, and then, this question about the rate of change, and can we keep up? Do you want to go first, Jon?

Jon Steinberg

Yeah, I’m happy to answer the question about the national and global approach. So, from our experience. So, we – so, first of all, we have signed a Code of Practice with the European Commission, which includes rules around, and principles around advertising and political advertising, election advertising, and applies to national elections and referendum in all EU member states, and our commitment, because we made it in October, applies here in the UK as well. That creates a standard of tech companies needing to include information, basically, in our disclosure. So, who’s behind this advertisement, verification of the identity, and a creative repository transparency report, so that you can see all the ads that were run, and the money that was spent on them, absolutely, and some basic targeting criteria that is GDPR compliant. And that’s a commitment that we have made. You can see what we did in the US during the mid-term elections last year, as an example of what we have announced and are rolling out ahead of the parliamentary elections that take place in Europe this coming May.

I think, from a – to understand why there are sometimes gaps, in this sense, between what national law calls for and what technology companies are doing, is that, in this case, national law has not caught up. So, it’s not that we are going above the law. Most – there is not a single EU country, which has introduced clear regulation of digital advertising for elections. It just doesn’t exist, and there are not rules – or there are, excuse me – there is not consistency in the rules, in terms of who’s allowed to fund elections. So, there are some countries in Europe, where they, very clearly and transparently, political parties get their money from foreign countries. There are numerous examples of that across the continent. So, we’re put in a place where there’s political and public pressure, which I – is legitimate for us to make sure that there’s not foreign intervention in elections, and that we are providing a level of disclosure, and then we look at, at the same time, our commitments to being – adhering to the law in every country in which we operate, and that then becomes very difficult to build a scalable solution.

So, what we have – the approach we have taken is to go beyond the law in EU countries, and to set a higher standard for what our sys – how our systems will operate, because, otherwise, not only are we building a system for 27 countries at once, but we would have to build a system that had many different layers of enforcement, and different rules, because of the patchwork of this legislation. So, our approach is as I’ve described it, and I actually think it goes – I would think it is pro-democracy because we’re going to force more disclosure than member states would have required us to otherwise.

Hans Kundnani

Okay, Julia.

Julia Reda

Yeah, and I do think we need more rules around elections, but the question is what kind of rules? I mean, what we have seen with this, kind of, co-regulation approach, which is, basically, the European Commission is making the threat of passing legislation, unless the companies somehow fix it themselves. And the fixes that they come up with are not always really fit for purpose. So, for example, with Facebook, you have this archive of election advertisement, where you can look at what kind of advertisement has been placed, but it is actually making it extremely difficult for Independent Researchers from universities to use the data the way that they see fit, and run the analysis that they think are most relevant, and I think there we have to be really careful, and I would rather say that there should be mandated transparency, and access to the raw data on these kinds of things.

I think there is also sometimes a little bit of a hubris that technology companies are not always aware of the specificities of particular elections. So, for example, like, there was a lot of experience that was gained from the UK referendum, and also, from the Irish referendum, about some of the problems and pitfalls, and there is a lot of focus on the topic of foreign interference at the moment, which is, you know, possibly part of the problem, but certainly not the whole problem, and then sometimes companies try to just apply those rules to a new context. So, Facebook recently announced that they want to basically apply the same rules that they have tested in the UK context to the EU elections, which include that an entity can only place advertisement in their own country, which is, you know, and when you think about it – so, we have the European Parliament placing advertisement around the election, asking people to vote, that would only be shown in Belgium, I suppose? I mean, that doesn’t really make sense. So, I think what I would really like to see is that if companies have policies around that, that they build them together with the electoral authorities, because they are the ones who are responsible for running the elections, and I – you know, if they talked to them from the start, probably, these kinds of mistakes would not happen.

On the code is law point, I think we have a little bit of a problem where Politicians have a contradictory view of technology. On the one hand, they think that, you know, these technology companies are the devil, and they can do – you know, algorithms are kind of scary, and they will destroy all our jobs, and the singularity is just around the corner, and so on. So, on the one hand, there’s, kind of, an inflated belief of what technology can do, and it’s – they find it extremely scary, but, yet, at the same time, there’s kind of a childlike trust into it where we are passing legislation that is asking technology companies to solve extremely different – difficult societal issues. I mean, there I agree on the fake news point, that you’re not going to build an algorithm that can distinguish misinformation from legitimate news. It’s not possible, and I think some of the attempts in this area are actually changing our political norms.

Yeah, and just a final comment on the point about urban and rural that was raised at the beginning. I think whenever we do use technology to try to enhance democracy, we have to be very careful about the digital divide, and that not everybody has the same access to technology, and if you focus on that too much, you might actually end up disenfranchising communities that are already somewhat cut off from the decision-making process.

Hans Kundnani

Did you – either of you want to add anything on that?

Francesca Bria

Maybe I can expand on the point around the divide. I think there are many divides. There is a geographical divide, and I think we also see it played pretty strongly in France nowadays, you know, what – the countryside versus the city, and cities more and more, kind of, centralising a lot of the economic power, but also, all the problems around that. There is socioeconomic divides, and gender divides, within even cities, and then beyond cities. And so, for instance, when we do our technology policy at a city level, we try to address all of that. I mean, first with the, kind of, connectivity divide. So, for instance, Barcelona is a city that owns its own broadband. We have 700 square metres of broadband, which is public fibre, and we share it, also, with smaller villages in Catalonia, and we have a policy of neutral and fair access to this broadband. But we also do a lot, regarding education and digital skills and empowerment, and digital democracy is part of the question around digital divide, because I think connectivity is one part, but it’s much bigger than that. And so, you know, we’re training kids, we’re integrating in the curriculum of school questions around technology, 3D printing, but also, science technology and the arts. So, STEM education and pedagogy around technology. So, is – I think the divide is a broader issue.

I wanted to say, also, something around this question of speed that was posed between technology, so fast, and regulation is so slow. I think this is partially true, but you should see the short-term and the long-term. So, I think something can be disrupting very fast, you know, disrupting. Some things are good to be disrupted, other things not, because we don’t have alternatives that are robust, that are egalitarian, and that are societal alternatives. When it comes to healthcare, education, public transportation, it’s not just enough to disrupt it, you also want to see what is a better model to handle these kind of complex societal problems, and I think sometimes, regulation may seem too slow, or politics may seem too slow, but, actually, we do have the instrument, and we could be much more longer-term and visionary. So, I think we lack a little bit of ambition. So, if you see at how we got to this technological development, this was because, mostly, the state has been investing a lot of resources, has been funding university research centres, talent, and industry, and industries were able to then speed up, and, you know, all this technological development, but in the first place, there was a vision where we want to go.

There was a lot of public investment, and society was working to achieve certain objectives and, somehow, it feels, also, to me, that we are a bit – I mean, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have the conversation around what do we do in the next elections, and how do we fix the problem, how do we regulate Google? These are all great, but I think we also, have to be more ambition. We have to look at the long-term. What kind of alternatives do we want? I mean, do we want, for instance, I mean, I keep saying that I do not want to rely only on commercial, big platforms, based in the US, or based in China, you know, we can see the difference. I do not only want to rely on these big commercial platforms for civic and democratic participation. I think we have alternatives, like, for instance, in Barcelona. Europe could scale these alternatives very quickly. We have a platform, which is decentralised, it’s privacy announcing, it’s open source, it has ethics, privacy and security by design. We actually do private impact assessment on the algorithm, and the platform is owned by the citizens themselves. Not by Governments, and not by the corporations. The citizen own the platform. It is a digital common, and in particular, they own the data, so that there cannot be this kind of manipulation. And I think this is more transparent, is more accountable, democratically, and this decentralised infrastructure can become a pan-European, and then, maybe, even beyond, because we have other cities, globally, that are taking it up. So, it’s more, maybe, a grassroot app – it’s a bottom-up approach that has a bigger vision.

Hans Kundnani

So…

Francesca Bria

So, we want, actually, to change things as well. We can.

Hans Kundnani

A citizens-owned search engine?

Francesca Bria

No. Well, hold on. Well, I think indexing can be a public good, if that’s the question, and I think we did have a lot of capacity in Europe. I mean, you know, from CERN, big universities, the Minitel. What about that? Well, we have a lot of scientific and technological capacity, and I think we can still be leaders in this world, and not just digital colonialism. You know, in Europe, we want to be leading this technological revolution, and also, match our standards, which are environmental, gender, social and citizen rights standards.

Hans Kundnani

Yeah. Guillaume, and on the urban-rural thing, I mean, the gilets jaunes, at least at the beginning, were people who’d been pushed out of the cities because of rising real estate prices, and then were hit by the fuel tax increase, and were therefore protesting, right?

Guillaume Liegey

Hmmm hmm, absolutely. So, I think it’s important. For me, the rural versus urban has to do with how do you understand everyone? You know, the silent majority, and the gilets jaunes is exactly a crisis of the silent majority not having the connection with the political world, to share their issues, and it’s very important to be able to listen to people, even after election day. You know, I mean, if you know Politicians, if you’ve been on a campaign, you know that during a campaign you try to have a lot of contact with voters, but then you’re elected or not, and it stops.

It shouldn’t stop, and for a very good reason, because if you don’t listen to people continuously, you made bad policy decisions, and I’ll give you one example. My company has been working with a German-based think tank, Das Progressive Zentrum, who was interested in understanding what people were living in areas affected by the migrant crisis, what they thought of politics, and, you know, what they thought of populist parties, etc. So, what we do – and we send people, in targeted neighbourhoods, to knock at doors, and ask a series of questions, in Germany, and in France. In France, it was in Calais. You know, Calais, it’s a very – completely affected by the migrant crisis. In Germany, it was in a bunch of places, but they had in common to have migrant centres nearby. And you – so, you could say, and most Politicians today think that immigration is a big problem, and they have to be tough on immigration, no matter if they used to have a more progressive discourse on immigration.

So, what comes out of those conversations? That immigration is never mentioned as a top issue per se, never. The – what immi – what the migrant crisis show is that people suddenly realise that the Government is doing something for migrants, but they’re like, “But you’ve not – you’re not doing anything for me,” and that’s the core problem. So, if you start being tough on immigration, maybe on the short run, I’m not saying you won’t have an impact on the short run, but you’re not solving the core problem. So, bottom line, if you don’t continue to listen to people afterwards, you will make bad policy decision because you don’t know what they think and, you know, it comes back to the distrust with institution. That was the main problem that we identified through this. And if I may, someone made a comment about online campaigns and whether they should be regulated. So, in France, it’s completely forbidden to pay a political ad during an official campaign period, completely forbidden.

Okay, we still are able to win elections. No, but I want to say something, which has – I mean, I’m not a regulator, so I’m not an expert, but I think if – when you want to regulate something, you have to be certain about its impact. So, you have to be able to measure its impact. Otherwise, you may regulate things that need not be regulated, and online campaigns, there’s a lot of scientific literatures, literature on the impact of different campaign techniques on the vote, and the two are Scientists: Alan Gerber and Donal Green. They publish a book every year called Get Out the Vote! I recommend to read it. It’s a summary of all scientific experiments ran on campaigns. What does it show, regarding online campaigns? No impact. There has not been a single scientific experiment that show that you can win votes using online campaigns. It’s very spectacular, it’s great for Journalists, because it makes amazing stories, but it does not have an impact. So, my view on the German – on the Russian intervention in the US, very spectacular, no impact.

Hans Kundnani

Yeah, very, very interesting. Let’s squeeze in a couple more questions. At the front, here, two at the front here, yeah, Trisha and then Aster.

Trisha de Borchgrave

Hi, Trisha de Borchgrave, Freelance Writer. I just wanted to take up your point on if technology’s going to facilitate, enable that representational element, that bottom-up element, do we really have to start looking at what the electoral political systems are in each country? Because a Macron could happen, happened in France, but it couldn’t happen in England because of its electoral – so, do we need to have more of a coalescing of that? If we’re really going to think about bottom-up, we’ve got to think of, you know, to-down political institutions and systems?

Hans Kundnani

Very interesting, it’s one of the things we’re going to be looking at in the Commission. Aster, behind, right behind, yeah.

Aster

My name is [inaudible – 62:50], and I’m a student at the Oxford Internet Institute. The internet is very much an American invention, Google is an American invention, Facebook is an American invention, the internet itself is basically an American invention, and I’ve heard Francesca Bria, especially, talk about like a right-based approach, when we are talking about technology. Are we may be facing, like – is the question that we should be asking, maybe, more does Europe agree with the internet? Does Europe disagree with how the internet has been structured, and how it functions, and is, maybe, that part of the question that we are basically trying to answer today?

Hans Kundnani

Great, and then right at the front here, and that goes to what I was suggesting earlier about the possible fragmentation of the internet. Yes, sorry, you were waiting patiently.

Martin Plaut

Hi, Martin Plaut, Institute of Commonwealth Studies. I’m just worried that this discussion’s very northern. Northern in the sense that people in Africa, for example, where are we? And, you know, Jon talks about the idea of having a nice little arrangement with Europe. Great, very pleased about it, but where are we in Africa? Look at somewhere like Bell Pottinger, which brought South Africa close to the edge of civil war, through the Guptas and what Zuma did, and what they paid for. This was exceptionally dangerous. If it wasn’t for old-fashioned Journalists, who called them out, and the results could have been absolutely catastrophic, and South Africa is not alone. You see similar things in Kenya, and, you know, you guys are going to have nice arrangements in Europe. What about the rest of the world, where already democracies are weak, and systems of regulation are extremely lacking?

Hans Kundnani

Okay, great. I’m really sorry we don’t have more time to have more questions. So, we have a few minutes left, so maybe you could pick one of those three questions and make any last comments you want to make. So, electoral systems, and the Global South, and is Europe against the internet? Jon, do you want to start? I mean, maybe the Global South one, I feel, was most directed at you.

Jon Bergstein

Yeah. So, I think it’s a fair critique. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that we aren’t working on these issues, but we have big elections coming up this year in South Africa and Nigeria, and we have teams introducing a lot of the same tools that we’re introducing in Europe and North America there. We’re not doing as much on political advertising. Also, there’s not as much political advertising in those markets, and so, it’s not an abject – or it’s not giving up our responsibility there, but some of the tools that we’re developing are more specific to the needs on the ground. I have a team that’s in Pretoria this week, doing training for political parties about using online tools to help people fi – to, you know, spread authoritative content, and to fight disinformation, and we had a very – a wide – a range of tools that we use in Kenya to try to ensure that the post-election violence we had seen in the previous election, didn’t reoccur, at least not because of using our tools. So, I think it’s a good critique. I don’t want you to leave with the impression that we’re not thinking about it, or that we’re not working on it, because we are.

Hans Kundnani

Great. Guillaume, electoral systems, do they matter?

Guillaume Liegey

Yeah. So, you said that Macron happened in France, but it couldn’t happen anywhere. I think Macron could happen anywhere, but don’t forget that Macron was extremely lucky in France, in the sense that – and that’s a very important lesson. When – you know, it’s very easy, when you win an election, to say that you did everything right and then you won. It’s not true. I mean, sometime you run amazing campaigns and you lose, and sometime you run very poorly organised campaign, and you win, and Donald Trump is an example. His campaigns was poorly organised in the way it used data, in the way it mobilised volunteers. It was really poorly organised, compared to Hillary Clinton, who inherited Barack Obama’s infrastructure. So, today we can measure what works and what doesn’t work, and again, maybe I should not be saying that, but if someone tells you that he has the magic recipe to help a candidate win 10/15/20% point, it’s a lie, it’s simply a lie. We know today, because there’s been a lot of experiment and measurements, when you do a campaign, you can move the needle by three to 5% points max.

So, what happened with Macron? I think it’s a combination of there was an opening in the centre, which Macron did not control. He didn’t control who was the Socialist Party candidate, he did not control who was the right-wing party candidate, but they were both – they went to their extremes, otherwise a spot the centre, then the main candidate collapsed because of a scandal. Macron had nothing to do with that, I mean, if you’ve heard something contrary, it’s not true, he had nothing to do with that. What did he do? He focused on what he could control, which is organising his campaign, mobilising volunteers, knocking at doors, building a movement. That he could control, and then he got a bit lucky, as Mark Zuckerberg got lucky when he made Facebook, as your, you know, bosses got lucky when they made Google. There are probably, like, ten other Googles that never emerged. You have to be lucky to achieve great things. I mean, you have to work well, but you also have to be a bit lucky. So, I don’t think, and I’ve had this debate with people in the UK, actually, about the possibility to start a movement from scratch, and I don’t think the political system is a constraint. I am convinced it is not a constraint. What did Macron? He raised money, because he had no money. He raised money more than anyone before. It’s hard to raise money, but you can do it. Then he mobilised people. It’s hard to convince people to give time for you, but it is possible, and then, you know, he was, in a way, lucky. This could happen in other countries, I believe.

Hans Kundnani

Okay. Julia, any final thoughts?

Julia Reda

Yeah. Does Europe agree with the internet? I think it’s very much a generational question, and Europe is, for the most part, run by 60-year-old men, and they certainly do not agree with the internet, and I think Douglas Adams said that “Technology that is around when you’re born is normal, technology that comes when you’re 20 is the best thing ever, and is going to revolutionise the world, and the technology that comes when you’re 40 is evil and will destroy democracy,” apparently. So, I think, basically, the people under 20 in Europe, probably would not want to live without the internet, and they have a completely different political discourse from the one that most of you have. Like, if you ask your, I don’t know, 16 to 20-year-old children about Article 13, they probably know what I’m talking about, and are concerned about it, because they are, yeah, basically looking at the internet as a really important part of their lives, and of society.

On the electoral system, yeah, I do think that Macron could happen in the UK. I studied electoral systems at an earlier point, and, actually, I mean, all the European democracies started out with first-past-the-post, and it was always the party system that diversified first. So, it’s parties that change electoral laws, at the end of the day, and what we have in the UK at the moment is a completely untenable situation. You have a two-party-system where, on the most important political question of a generation, they are saying the same things. They are just fighting about who is going to be better at Brexit, but, eventually, I am sure that unless Brexit somehow magically goes away, there will be a political divide around this question, with parties representing both camps, and that will lead to a multi-party system, and then you’re going to get rid of first-past-the-post.

Hans Kundnani

Okay, let’s not get into Brexit with one minute to go. Francesca…

Francesca Bria

Totally, no.

Hans Kundnani

…last word?

Francesca Bria

Yeah, maybe two things I would like to say. So, first of all, I think it’s very important that when we discuss democracy, new forms of democracy, we don’t only focus on elections. I find it completely restrictive. I think, also, I mean, in the last, like, six to eight years, have been working on participatory democracy, throughout the world, and I see a big change in how political parties are engaging members at city level, how we all – like, throughout the year, you know, in Barcelona, our policy programme has been written with 400,000 citizens actively shaping it, and 70% of the proposals that are our action plan today were proposed directly from citizens. This is really about reshaping the relationship between citizens and Government, and you have to have a way to do it, and I think this is the way to think about a new form of democracy, which, by the way, is very close to the real things that matter to people. For me, it’s very hard to discuss a smart city or data cryptography with citizens. They want to know about affordable housing, energy, you know, bills, they want to know about mobility, they want to know about the question of migration, climate change. I mean, important things, and we should be able to show how technology’s shaping and influencing that, and that’s going away from the technocratic agenda.

To the internet question, I think it’s very important to move away from cages. I think the internet, at this point, is even that, is a construct that’s not useful, for me. So, if you think about what is the future internet? You have to think about 5G, artificial intelligence, large-scale computation, decentralised architectures. New protocols are emerging, it’s not just the internet. So, not at the technological level, but at the discourse level, I think it’s very narrow, and I like to believe that the rights-based framework, which have fundamental rights at the core, and, you know, information, self-determination and Data Protection and algorithmic accountability can become global standards. So, it’s not just going to be a splinternet, and especially not just between civilians, capitalism and the Chinese dystopia. I would like to think that we can propose something better for humanity.

Hans Kundnani

Wonderful. On that note, I’m really sorry, again, that we couldn’t take more of your questions, but we will be, as I said at the beginning, having many more events, exploring different aspects of this in more depth. Clearly, the next one we need someone from Facebook on the panel. Maybe we can ask Nick Clegg to come along, and…

Francesca Bria

So, about Brexit or Facebook?

Hans Kundnani

Exactly, but I hope we’ve shown you how important these issues are, how complex they are, and how brilliant our project is going to be, with these three members of our Commission. And we hope, as I said at the beginning, that you will get involved. There’ll be information about how to do that on our website very, very soon, and we look forward to seeing you again for the next event here. Thank you [applause].