Vision, values and comms in the era of #techlash

In the era of techlash, there’s a growing unease about the power and influence of large tech companies. The concern runs deep. At the heart is the perception of how tech monopolies, think Facebook and Google, are seen to distort markets and political systems. And in the news we see very real concerns about fake news, ad targeting, and the lack of data privacy.

This raises an important question: how do we come to see tech as good? This was the starting point for a discussion I attended last week, hosted by AprilSix Proof. Speakers included:

• Professor Jon Crowcroft, Researcher at Large at the Alan Turing Institute and Marconi Professor of Communications Systems at Cambridge University
• Emily Foges, CEO at Luminance
• Reema Patel, Programme Manager at the Nuffield Foundation’s Ada Lovelace Institute
• Amita Hanspal, Senior Account Director at AprilSix Proof (Chair)

Techlash

Perhaps the initial question, how we come to see tech as good, is a misnomer. Tech in itself is neither good nor bad. It’s made messy by a combination of design, purpose, and the applications to which it’s put.

On design

The design point is an important one. Tech needs to be designed to respond to wider needs, and to enable a sense of control. Part of the #techlash movement is about data, what happens to it, where it flows, how it might be used to feed us back information that influences what we buy, how we think, who we vote for.

Design, in terms of product and application, needs to give users confidence. And it’s not just design of products, but also how the businesses behind the products are structured. Governance, accountability, and transparency, count. Companies are being called out for being tokenistic. Recently there’s been a rise in charges of #ethicswashing  where companies might put in place an ethics board or committee to pacify critics and divert public attention.

And there can be no discussion on techlash without a discussion on matters of public trust. When it comes to big tech, and tech in general, how do we increase public trust? Is a regulatory approach the right way forward? Or a principle based approach? Does it stifle regulation? One example given was the introduction of a principles based approach in financial services. Rather than stifling innovation, it initiated significant and positive cultural change.

The future

So what might the world look like in 10 years? Views varied, and raised more questions than answered. Could a principles based approach work? In the era of artificial intelligence, how do we ensure public trust and explainability for decision making? How do we hold people and organisations to account when decisions are increasingly being made by machines? Where are humans in decision making loops?

Final thoughts in the era of techlash

My hope is that those new, emerging, and existing, organisations and companies that are able to address these questions, and build legitimate public trust, are the ones that succeed.

With thanks to Amita Hanspal for leading such a fascinating discussion on vision, values and comms in the era of techlash.