Will Digitalism Provide a Beneficial Social Structure or Help Create Greater Divisiveness?

Opportunities created by digitization, and the massive boost to personal mass-communication that smartphones delivered, have always excited and fascinated me. I founded my virtual advertising agency Ludvik & Partners in New York City in 2008. In 2012 I launched Crowdsourcing Week with the aim for it to be the world’s number one platform covering crowdsourcing […]
Is digitalism as a social structure based on digital technology good or bad

Written by Epi Ludvik

May 31, 2021

Opportunities created by digitization, and the massive boost to personal mass-communication that smartphones delivered, have always excited and fascinated me. I founded my virtual advertising agency Ludvik & Partners in New York City in 2008. In 2012 I launched Crowdsourcing Week with the aim for it to be the world’s number one platform covering crowdsourcing and various related aspects of the crowd economy, prize challenges and open innovation.  Fast forward to 2018 we added the BOLD Awards to celebrate innovation and disruptive breakthroughs based on new technology and innovative business models. So what is it about ‘Digitalism’ as a basis of a political and business philosophy built on digital technology that’s causing me concern? In short, is digitalism good or bad?

In this post-industrial Information Age, the volume of available data puts it beyond human capability to fully analyze and harness the knowledge it represents. Two routes resolve the dilemma. One is to involve more people than before in business, social and governmental issues through a process of opening the search for solutions to wider groups of problem-solvers. This may often be through creating a prize challenge to incentivize involvement. The second route is to employ artificial intelligence technology to assess data faster and in higher volumes than is humanly possible.

is digitalism good or bad

Robotic surgery based on digital technology: sourced from da Vinci Systems

The use of digital technology and AI have already improved and enriched our lives in truly life changing ways. Automated image assessment identifies more cancer tumours than teams of humans. Robots can perform surgery at higher levels of accuracy that accelerate patient recovery and free up hospital beds. Robots can also perform tasks in lethal environments – for humans – in space, deep under the sea, and in hot and cold extreme temperatures. They can also perform the most boring, repetitive work, including call center basics, flipping burgers, bank teller functions and scanning documents and records for specified words and phrases.

Online crowdfunding enables startup entrepreneurs to secure financial support when early stage lack of experience or an empty order book would deter traditional lenders or investors. The process creates goods, services and job opportunities that would not have otherwise existed. Vast numbers of gig economy workers are able to source freelance work and alleviate personal financial hardship, gain valuable experience, make contacts, and perhaps build previously unthinkable careers. A digital generation of new financial service providers enables better control of cashflow and credit, a faster and more accurate flow of payments, cross-border if required, and at lower cost to both payers and payees.

To me, the benefits of digital technology and the developments they enable are clear: they help us unlock our potential to do what we humans do best, innovate. However, it’s other uses of the technology and their impacts on crowds – which means “us” – that’s causing me, and many other crowd sector commentators, deep concern.

Faults in the system

The lack of personal data security is subject to growing scrutiny and criticism. This operates at two levels: one is security breaches by hackers, and the second one is the ‘legitimate’ use of data by the organizations that harvest it.

Security breaches

Personal hacks

Data hacking grew exponentially in the last 15 months or so due to Covid lockdowns that forced many people to work from home, accessing company systems through less secure residential connections. In answering “is digitalism good or bad?” here are some basic steps everyone can take to improve their security.

  • Check your home router settings. If you work from home, all the traffic will go via your home router. Criminals can hack it, get access to Wi-Fi traffic and the whole network. To prevent this from happening, you need to check the settings.
  • Make sure there are no unwanted devices connected to your home network.  You may use scanners to find all the devices on your home network.  It will allow the timely detection of an intruder. If you spot an unfamiliar device, delete it and change the Wi-Fi password.
  • Upgrade the router’s firmware. It should be updated to the latest version.
  • Do not open emails with attachments. The best approach is to use antivirus with the Anti Phishing module and the email filtering function.

Smart Cities

Organizations are the usual targets for ransomware threats, though media coverage of these incidents breeds mistrust in the minds of many individuals, which slows wider progression of data collection and data sharing. Smart cities, for example, use technology to monitor traffic flows and better manage use of roads and public transport, reducing congestion and air pollution. Installing and using digital technology is not the end of the job. More than 40 US municipalities were victims of cyberattacks in 2019. Baltimore was a notable casualty from a hack that shut down most of the city’s servers and some government applications. Through declining to pay a Bitcoin ransom that represented about $80,000, the hack cost the city an estimated $18m in direct costs and revenue shortfalls.

The Center for Long Term Cybersecurity at the University of California at Berkeley found that the greatest smart city security risks were posed by emergency alerts, street video surveillance, and smart traffic signals. City authorities need robust security plans, with an appropriate budget, to protect the integrity of their systems and the welfare and confidence of their citizens.  

Medical Records

Digitized medical records would reduce admin time in health service providers and could improve treatment. Mass, anonymised data collection would lead to improved norms for the identification, prevention and treatment of a multitude of conditions and illnesses.  Yet citizen resistance is strong and commonplace. Many people believe the health service providers who would use the data, and the government officials responsible for creating the system, aren’t up to the job of keeping it secure. They fear that personal details could be obtained by commercial users as diverse as insurance and pharmaceutical companies, dating agencies and social media platforms. This truly makes me very concerned, though not about whether digitalism is good or bad but the capabilities of government agencies and health service providers to safeguard the data the technology relies on.

There are endless eamples of why the public perceives such risks. In 2013, the UK Government closed a nine year project aiming to create a centralized IT system for the country’s National Health Service that had cost £2.7 billion, and would have gone on to cost £11bn in total. In 2017, ransomware attacks on regional NHS IT systems halted operations, froze access to patient data, crippled ambulance services, and cost £92m in ransomware payments and subsequent system upgrades. The public does not easily forget such incidents. However, I still believe markets always have a short memory. 

Data usage by corporate owners

By ‘legitimate’ use of data I chiefly mean the leading US technology companies Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google, along with Apple (FAANGs). They were pioneers, and billions of people have formed their internet habits around using them to connect, socialize, shop and search for information or entertainment. We all agreed to whatever terms and conditions were flashed up in front of us to use the services free of charge. We thought tools such as “people who also bought what you just did also like these items….” were clever and helpful.

Then, as Shoshana Zuboff detailed in her 2019 book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”, Google pioneered a way to use what they termed “digital exhaust” – their leftover data after helping advertisers to get us to click through to their online messages.  After 2001, advertisers were told that where their advertising appeared would be scheduled by a “magic, black box of tricks.” Advertisers must have found it worked. From 2001 when Google introduced the service to 2004 when it went public through an IPO, their net advertising revenue grew by a staggering 3,590%. So, is digitalism good or bad? It’s certainly very good for Google and its shareholders.

Off the back of guiding advertisers, future “click behavior” was universally adopted and has become a predictor of all behavior. Our private and personal records of what we buy, watch, listen to and read, what we say on social media and in emails, plus where we go, is consolidated into identity profiles and offered to a marketplace where it is bought and sold over and over again. This is all part of the massive growth of the amount of information in the world – it’s about us – the true contributors in the grand scheme of things!

Is digitalism as a social structure based on digital technology good or bad

The Pace of Knowledge Growth

We have no idea who has data about us or what they do with it, other than try to find the right stimuli to make us do what “they” want, whether that is make a purchase, hold an opinion, receive news feeds with a particular perspective, or even how we cast our vote. In liberal societies people earnestly defend their freedom of will, but does it really still exist if what any of us believes is manipulated by not necessarily fake news, but often news that comes with a slanted tone of voice and context? This leads us to a massive programming of our minds and manipulated information for the benefits of a few. Is this what we opted-in to?  

The FAANGs corporations, and many others that would like to be like them, are already so rich and powerful they are beyond national government control. They avoid paying taxes; they trade nation states off against each other in tenders for where they will build their offices, employ thousands of staff and boost local economies; and they may be quizzed by US Senate committees whose members admit they have no clue about how these businesses operate. To put this in a simple context and taking Apple computers as an example: almost every Apple device is manufactured in China, they park their money in Ireland, and pay little to no tax in US. Yet our new US administration willingly pays for carbon emission tax in the world with taxpayers money without tracing the root cause of this issue. Now, I’m not saying Apple or China are the cause, I’m saying these are just examples of what we are seeing here. There are many more. In the meantime. the FAANGs founders and shareholders achieve unbelievable wealth: how much has it corrupted their original agendas and led them to set themselves apart?

The same technology allows the creation of gig economy, low paid ZERO Hours Contract work for people without income security or worker benefits of minimum pay, sick leave or a paid holiday entitlement. We really didn’t think the new Information Age was going to exploit some of the weaker people in society like this.  

Government use of digitalism to control rather than create

To immediately give an extreme example, China has the most carefully watched population in the world, and it operates a social credit system. A set of databases and initiatives monitor and assess the behaviour and trustworthiness of individuals, companies and government entities. Each entry is given a social credit score, with rewards for those who have a high rating and punishments for those with low scores. At a personal level, known acquaintances are encouraged to cold shoulder people who commit even such minor misdemeanours as jaywalking.

In a recent escalation of their oppressive use of data, China’s Huawei corporation has tested AI software with an aim to identify guilty culprits among people who may not even be suspected of doing anything. It is being tested on the persecuted Uighur Moslems, and rings alarm bells of indiscriminate future random testing among the wider populace. Similar oppressive things are happening in Myanmar, Thailand and other countries. 

What does the future hold?

The conclusion to all this is going to be what? Digitalization of technology empowers every citizen with a device to access the internet or phone systems. They can tap into more information and knowledge than was ever imagined.

Though how will ‘digitalism’ develop as a framework to structure communities, commerce and governance? Will the technology be used to advance welfare, wealth and wellbeing? 

Or how much to fuel divisiveness between holders of different opinions, to accentuate chasms of wealth between the richest and the poorest, or to suppress what liberal countries hold to be a set of basic human rights? What can crowds do against data manipulation by their governments? Can governments bring FAANGs in line with the generally accepted expectations of financial and ethical behavior by businesses? In short, what is needed for digitalism to remain democratic? I challenge each and every one of you to really think about and act on what is right. We are at the crossroads here. Don’t let your basic human rights be taken away from you in front of your eyes. Lets create a BETTER WORLD TOGETHER and let human ingenuity THRIVE. Time to be BOLD.

About Author

About Author

Epi Ludvik

As the Founder and CEO of Crowdsourcing Week and BOLD Awards, Epi works with all types and sizes of organizations, from high-profile companies to emerging startups, helping them to harness the power of the crowd and human-centered innovation.His pioneering journey in the digital world has been fueled by his commercial endeavors in the US, Europe and Asia, plus an unrelenting passion for crowd-based technology and marketplaces. The two factors combined have decentralized innovation, and disrupted entire business sectors in ways that were never previously imaginable.Epi’s gift and passion for crowdsourcing have allowed him to grow his companies and become a global thought-leader on the transformative potential of crowdsourcing in all industries and sectors, and all areas of public life.Epi Ludvik earned a BS in Advertising & Marketing from the Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC and has been a serial entrepreneur since graduation.

You may also like

Top Real Estate Crowdfunding Platforms in North America

Top Real Estate Crowdfunding Platforms in North America

Real estate crowdfunding offers a chance for retail investors to be involved in the property market without the hefty upfront costs of buying a whole building, and then without the requirement to maintain any part of a building. Real estate investments can be made...

Speak Your Mind


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.