IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022 - 8

Editorial
indiscretions and onto digital dependence through
persuasive and " pre-suasive " technology, they are
rendered powerless on two fronts: privacy and attention.
As a data generator, a person should have a right
not to be observed; however, a person should also
have the right not to be remembered. Social media
archives have become the equivalent of dustbins
for mud-raking journalists looking for compromising
material that can threaten anyone's career prospects.
As a data processor, a person should have a right
not to be interrupted, and the right to be able to focus
their energies on socially productive purposes [14].
However, as the third example of asymmetric power
in the Digital Society, we observe an increasing use
of psychology, neuroscience, and neurobiology
in addiction by design. This occurs in many ways:
this includes online gambling and keeping people
" in the zone " [15]; computer gaming that includes
many of the techniques common to gambling, for
example, through the use of loot boxes; and interface
design based on behavioral models intended to
capture and keep attention [14], [16].
The fourth example of power asymmetry is the
gatekeeping of knowledge, which has shifted away
from traditional gatekeepers like the universities
and the mainstream press. While this has had some
beneficial generative effects, such as the creation
of Wikipedia, there may be some degenerative consequences
too. One of these is the dual ownership
of information sources and information reporting.
It has been shown how vested interests have used
the scientific method, founded on doubt, against
themselves [17]. The basic process goes as follows.
The first step is to set up an Astroturf Institute, call it
something like Foundation for Global Public Health,
say. The second step is, under its auspices, to publish
a white paper saying, taking some examples
completely at random, that hydroxychloroquine or
ivermectin are treatments for some virus or other.
This is never published in peer-reviewed journals,
but is reported in traditional press, their online presence,
and social media (with a deferential genuflection
to the institute's grandiose title, a courtesy not
extended to " real " academics of a contrary opinion).
Then a proper scientist has to debunk the white
paper and recommends getting vaccinated instead.
This work is published in a proper journal but, unlike
the original paper, it is not reported in online media.
It turns out that the owner of the Astroturf Institute
and the social media are one and the same.
8
The fifth example is the iron triangle of mutual
support between BigTech, congress/parliament, and
browbeaten academia [18]. Congress passes the law
on taxes and underfunds academia, and therefore
BigTech has the money, so it funds the political campaigns
of those who make such laws and the research
programs of the less stroppy academics. These academics
are then successful, but will not hold the
politicians to account and might exercise undue
influence on appointments and promotions panels,
all the while churning out equally unstroppy PhD students
who still have not been taught critical thinking
skills or sufficient ethics, so, therefore, they are smart
enough to operate the equipment but not so smart
that they will start asking any difficult questions.
The sixth example could be the misuse of differentiated
pricing, if it is used to exclude people, or
social segments, from certain services. For example,
in the U.K., the " public " schools are indeed open to
anyone, anyone who can afford the exorbitant fees.
Cash is a great equalizer: however, cryptocurrencies
might not be. Therefore, differentiated pricing might
simply provide another form of selectivity: for example,
there is evidence of the U.K. government using
nudge being used to bring about behavioral change
through covert targeted advertising campaigns on
social media [19]. There are serious ethical issues
with such an approach to " behaviorist governance, "
but not least that by avoiding all forms of public scrutiny
and debate about its policies, a government is
less likely to be held accountable. Behaviorist governance
in conjunction with performative governance
[10] opens up a disturbing new relationship
and dynamic between citizens and the state.
The seventh example is not unemployment, the
scourge of the 1980s, but under-employment in the
gig economy that aligns conveniently (for some)
with the platform economy. The precarious nature of
self-employment in this economic model combined
with the desolation of the community (in this case,
the workplace community otherwise known as a
" union " ) results in a fearful, compliant, exploitable,
and expendable workforce. Workers on the margins
like this may find themselves alternating between
" gigs " or piecemeal work and benefits. If benefits start
to be paid in a fiat cryptocurrency, then there is the
potential to control where and on what the money is
spent: this form of control has been called techno-feudalism
[18]. But it does not end with the " precariat. "
If Graeber's [20] analysis is right and that many
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022
