IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020 - 36

Digitalization Challenging
Democracy
Let us first zoom into some potential threats. The combination of
authoritarianism and the technological reservoir of digital tools is frightening. Armin Grunwald [4, pp. 168-
175] shows how the characteristics
of these technologies could challenge the fundamentals of democracy. He detects five main risks.
The first is that an exponentially
growing pool of data, which is a new
source of power, is currently controlled by a small group of globally
engaged private firms and remains
largely unregulated. One important
characteristic of the power of these
data driven firms is that their tax
payments are well below the average. How could and should states
and citizens control these new digital superpowers?
Second, algorithms and deep
learning systems are very good at
discovering patterns based on big
data analysis; with growing complexity of data and deep learning
systems it becomes more and more
difficult for humans (experts included) to understand how algorithms
actually produce their sometimes
astonishing results. "Believing" (a
fundamental characteristic of the
Middle Ages) technical systems
would substitute for "knowing" or
"understanding" causal relationships (fundamental characteristics
of the enlightenment). If we were to
transfer more and more decisions
from policymakers, judiciaries,
administrations, and parliaments to
deep learning systems, without solving the problem of lack of transparency, technological progress would
result in societal regression.
Third, digitalization (and autonomous technical systems) promises
to drive the acceleration of decisionmaking processes. While this may
be beneficial for the optimization
of production processes, it could

Grundwald shows that digitalization does not automatically translate
into strengthening democratic institutions. Governance is needed to
align digitalization with democracy.

undermine democratic and deliberative processes and ultimately be
destructive for societies. Democracy is about the participation of
many people, finding compromises
between different interests and
values, and creating public dialogues - democracy needs time
to balance the complex tensions
in diverse communities and societies. Digitalization is about automation, acceleration, and optimization.
Aligning societies and democracies
to the acceleration dynamics of
digitalization could undermine their
power and responsiveness.
Fourthly, democracy is cumbersome. Algorithms seem to be neutral, quick, objective. But could
we imagine election campaigns
between (social democratic, conservative, liberal, green) algorithms,
representing the different values
systems within societies; and Algorithms mainly driving or dominating decision making processes in
administrations? This would be a
technocratic, expert-based utopia
(or dystopia), substituting or undermining the complex decision-making processes and deliberations of
democracies and open societies.
Fifth, the collection of multiple
personalized data makes it possible
to detect behavioral patterns, lifestyles, politics, or sexual attitudes
of individuals. One example is that
of the different types of social
scoring systems (of private firms or
public institutions) that are emerging
around the globe. Large scale societal
experiments based on social scoring
technologies are already being used
by authoritarian regimes, but also by
so called non-liberal democracies or
even liberal democracies. From psychology we know that people, being
"observed" (now by social scoring systems) feel controlled and start behaving differently [5]. These trends could
undermine individual freedom, privacy, and public engagement.
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

Four Layers to Think about
a Re--newed Humanism in the
Digital Age
Against this background of dystopian scenarios or risks we will develop
a four-step approach to describe
some cornerstones for a forward
looking, optimistic future of humanism in the Digital Age:
Defending the achievements
of the Enlightenment in the Digital Age;
■■ Fixing the weaknesses of En--
lightenment with forward looking sustainability concepts;
■■ Developing normative guardrails to handle the challenges of
"technologization of humans"
and the "humanization of ma---
chines"; and
■■ Mobilizing the potentials of digital innovations for a Renewed
Humanism in the Digital Age.
■■

Defending the Achievements of
the Era of Enlightenment in the
Digital Age
Our starting point is to defend the
essential achievements of the
Enlightenment against the described
threats of digital disruptions to
democracy, privacy, freedom, and
dignity. How can we align the
-normative standards of Enlightenment with digital innovations and
dynamics? What would an institutional setting look like, that embeds
technological change into open and
democratic societies. Let us remember, what we should defend [6, p.
294]: The project of Enlightenment
is well summarized in Immanuel
Kant's "emergence of man from his
self-imposed imma turity" [7].
-Absolutism and God's grace were
∕

JUNE 2020

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2020