The Spider's Web
“It’s an alien life form… yeah… it’s Life On Mars and it’s just landed here”
Sitting there in 1999, looking and sounding as beguiling, electric and delicate as he always did, David Bowie was explaining his thoughts on how the waves of the internet were beginning to break upon society’s shore.
“I don’t think we’ve even seen the tip of the iceberg” he continued “I think the potential of what the internet is going to do to society, both good and bad, is unimaginable. I think we’re actually on the cusp of something exhilarating and terrifying”.
Exhilarated or Terrified?
In too deep or able to remove ourselves from the spider’s web?
I can only speak for myself, from my perspective - but with a view of someone who (as a friend commented this week) has their ‘Digital Fingers’ in a few pies.
I think we are in too deep, in the main I am terrified. I think we are wrapped so tightly in the spider’s web (or more specifically, the way it has been woven) - we can’t break free, we’re restricted (although we think we are not), confused and disorientated - reduced to no more than desperately lashing out - be this in the work we do, the way we communicate, or the way we look upon others.
I could outline my thoughts on how we’ve got here, how we’ve ‘allowed’ this to happen - but, I believe this diagram probably explains my perspective better than any rambling words that I scrap down on screen….a Venn diagram of disembodiment, if you will.
I’d rather outline what I think needs to be done. I think we may be able to (please allow me just one more poke at this metaphor) - take some scissors to the web - to untangle us, our minds and maybe our future. These are not just thrown together lines, not a piece of ‘content marketing’, nor plagiarised from a Ted talk or suchlike. They are not all connected nor are they interdependent. They are things that I think, albeit from my admittedly slightly misty-eyed perspective - need to happen to recalibrate our relationship with tech, each other and even our world. These are also, just the start - there are a lot more where these come from.
Big tech are split up. Multiple reasons for this;
I’ve tried to avoid this thought for some time, as if it is anti-capitalist, but actually its at the very heart of what capitalism should be. Capitalism at its best is empathetic - creating wealth, security and a public sector that allow individuals to support themselves and society as a whole. What we are seeing with big-tech is capitalism at its worst - low taxed monopolies creating wealth for the few - moving into the public sector and influencing services to their (and their shareholder ends)..
They stifle innovation. The very thought that they will do anything to support innovation (or in their language - competition) is really quite laughable. See - Microsoft (Teams) vs Slack, Facebook vs Snap, Apple vs App developers.
They create a ceiling on income growth. Save for the top 5%-10% in each business - the jobs (mainly in the service ‘tail’) they help create are often very manual or repetitive, require long hours, unprotected by worker rights and are in fact ‘lease schemes’ for the workforce. Whether a delivery driver for Amazon or a Digital Marketer using Google - the same principles apply.
They restrict the growth of their customers. For every bit of perceived insight that their clients (business of all kinds) receive from using the platforms - Big Tech receives considerably more. They use this to enhance their knowledge of their clients customers whilst providing minimal additional services. See Google AdWords, Amazon Marketplace, FB Ad’s,
They are not open to challenge/disruption or transformation. The challengers that hate to be challenged, the disrupters that don’t want to be disrupted, the transformers that want things to stay the same.
Charge an ‘Amazon’ tax. For every purchase on the platform apply a % tax - directly to Amazon - as a platform provider - and not initially to the seller (unless they are Amazon). This can benefit the consumer - Amazon are now rarely the cheapest online - growth and competition could be stimulated.
Create Universal Digital Access - incorporated within the social benefits scheme - access to broadband, tech and education of how to use the tech is included. These are applied to Child Benefits, Universal Benefits or indeed via Income Tax. Not everyone needs it - but it is there in the background - supporting and truly enabling a ‘levelling up’ of society.
Those on Social Media with over 10,000 followers - should be charged per post. Those with over 100,000 followers are charged per post and also have their posts ‘truth-checked’ - manually. If the post is ‘factually questionable’ its tagged as such.
As an alternative or in addition to the above - all users pay to use Social Media. Slowly, (in)perceptibly change the business model - would you pay £2 a month to use Twitter? Facebook? WhatsApp? Would you pay £4 not to receive ads? £6 to be in control of your own data and privacy on a platform?
Educate - use Universal Digital Access taxes to educate people on what privacy is. Make them understand the transaction that happens between us and businesses online in terms of our data for their services or our data for personalisation. Do this in schools, in workplaces, in further education.
Ban Marketing Cookies. They are not needed, they do not ‘enhance’ the experience, they are not ‘required’. A message to businesses that want to ‘personalise’ an experience - make it worth our while to provide you with our email address, make it worth our while to knowingly provide you with our wish list, or date of birth and our renewal date - spend time treating people as people and not data points.. Functional coding libraries exist that can deliver smooth interactions within throwing cookies at your browser.
So, make personalisation a proper choice. Personalisation does not enhance an experience. An experience can only be defined by an individual not a business. I have better ‘human’ experience when I turn off cookies and do not sign-up for a newsletter or an online account when buying a pair of socks.
As an industry (digital and maybe marketing) - change our language to change our own mindset. This is an old bugbear of mine. So, let’s not have ‘campaigns’, let’s not ‘target’ audiences - we are not going to war with these people.
As an industry - stop with the white, male, techie core at the centre of the design, build and decision making authority in terms of what is right, what is wrong and who is responsible.
Understand, empower and promote how tech can lift/rise and articulate struggles to the wider community. BLM, Trans rights, other human right(s) abuses have all had their ‘reach’ increased through social. It is incumbent on us all to push these more - ‘unlevel’ that playing field, that is being dominated by ‘bad actors’ - promote hope over fear - why on earth should any algorithm not be able to identify between content promoting hate with that of one promoting injustice?
There is such a thing as truth. There are facts. There are nefarious motivations. Tech has left itself open to have these realities - because they are realities - challenged. It’s equally open to have them reinforced.
I’ll end this ramble with a thought inspired by this comment from Jaron Lanier;
“People are not the product, it’s the gradual, slight, imperceptible change in your own behaviour and perception that is the product.”
I do sometimes wonder (in addition to the ignorance and wilful blindness of the time) if social media and the way we’ve allowed tech to be used today was available in 1930’s Nazi controlled Germany - what on earth would have happened. In some ways I think that scenario is being played out today.