On Digital Rights and Societal Change: The Great Hack

I recently watched The Great Hack on Netflix, a documentary exploring the impact on Digital Rights of the recent scandals affecting the social media titans. I enjoyed the film and found it quite eye-opening in some ways. It confirmed my ambition to be Facebook free. Yet I also thought it was part of a popular and unhealthy narrative that we are no longer the agents of our own fate that we perhaps were in the past.

The documentary was a good watch and very thought-provoking. If I were reviewing it, I would give it a strong four out of five stars, or 8 out of 10. It was engaging, enjoyable and seemed like an honest portrayal of the people who the filmmakers had the most access to.

However, by laying so many of the world’s problems at the foot of the technology companies, it risks becoming part of the apocalyptic description of the state of the world that has recently gained so much popularity.

A Persistent Negative Narrative

In this view, mainstream politics is broken, and personal responsibility is now diminished as a result of hidden forces, created by unseen individuals pulling strings to make us think and act as they intend. The documentary suggests that these forces and nefarious people can be exposed and brought to justice to bring about a better world. While I think there is some merit in this endeavour, the real truth of the matter is more nuanced.

The Great Hack highlights the dangers of data breaches. It is pretty bad to think that a dubious political consulting firm had access to the personal data of 87 million Facebook accounts in the first place; completely deplorable that they held on to this information after claiming it had been deleted. Evident throughout the show is that Cambridge Analytica were up to extremely underhand political activity, but I am unable to agree that outfits such as them are solely responsible for the polarised societies of the UK and US today.

I do believe that online privacy and Digital Rights are important. Furthermore, I think that there is, in general, a need for greater regulation and accountability in the technology sector. However, I disagree with decorated journalist Carole Cadwalladr’s assessment that the technology firm leaders have dramatically fallen from grace in ditching their visions for a better and more connected world. Earlier this year, she called them out as the ‘handmaidens of authoritarianism’.

The Early Presence of the Ideas of Societal Change

Words from the CEOs themselves indicate that they were always interested in more than just linking like-minded people together.

In the above interview from 2009, Jack Dorsey talks about people influencing one another’s behaviour via Twitter. He states that he wants to bring more people into the conversation about public policy and how we structure society. Lofty goals indeed but not necessarily paving the way for autocracy.

I do not agree that liberal democracy is broken on the basis of certain people using new and novel ways to influence ‘persuadable’ voters. If anything, liberal democracy is in a state of transition, and it will develop and adapt to the demands of the Information Age. Ten years ago, I concluded my undergraduate thesis by suggesting that the urge to express one’s identity and to have it recognized tangibly by others has to be thought of as an elemental force for shaping society and its culture.

What changes?

Through the underlying facilitation of everyday life, catalysed by the emergence of social media, the web has now become integrated into the social worlds of people who use it. This integration is generating new forms of engagement, arising out of networked connections and shared interests.

The individual desire for self-expression, recognition and most importantly acceptance is driving social media use. Amidst all this, and the point of The Great Hack, is the question – shouldn’t those holding political power make sure fundamental rights are respected in the territories in which their citizens live?

The Answer may be more Complicated…

The technology companies did not come from out of a vacuum. They were the creation of a variety of forces working in tandem, actively encouraged by those in power. The take-up by technology entrepreneurs and the drive from national governments to compete in a knowledge economy essentially imbued these new technologies with financial return. This monetary value is what ensured their distribution throughout developed nations.

Mark Zuckerberg demonstrates he was highly aware of the information sharing and privacy-related issues from the early days of his leadership. By indicating he knew the risks, his cards were on the table, near enough plain for everyone to see. I’m no great fan of the man, and I know Facebook’s record on privacy and data protection is woeful. Yet, as a techno-optimist, I believe change is coming, however slowly.

Final Thoughts

It is my contention that the need for wealth, power and security for society allows activities that increase the gap between what we should accept and what we actually end up living with. Eventually, the norms and values holding this gap in place change and upheavals happen.

The issues of inequality and injustice that are fuelling the rise of authoritarian movements across the globe are more to do with the underlying transition to the Information Society and less to do with the actions of specific companies and individuals.

I would not defend the operations of Cambridge Analytica and suggest that Carole Cadwalladr’s investigative work is of great significance in shaping the debate on Digital Rights. I just don’t think we should be seeking to tear apart the legacy of the prominent individuals who happen to be cresting the current wave of societal transformation.