Together they touched the essence of social equality and freedom, the heights of a cloudless future, together they exposed themselves to dangers, deviant, ugly, together they embarked on the path of self-regulation, healing. Modern democracy and digital technologies, parallel life since 1989. Their general course, their simultaneous transition from an atmosphere of general euphoria and complacency to slippery slopes and conditions that threaten their smooth evolution, are described in “K” by Giorgos Mitakidis, co-author of the World Wide Web Consortium and from the very beginning stood at the origins of the birth of new technologies, Professor Emeritus of Patrsky university and president of the Digital Education Forum.

“It all started in 1989. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, 45 years of the Cold War, and the spread of theories like Fukuyama’s about the end of history, the belief that democracy was no longer threatened, that it could easily spread and prevailed, was cultivated, and a general atmosphere of euphoria was created. We took it for granted that liberal democracy no longer had opponents, and we stopped effectively indoctrinating young people with its principles, efforts to preserve it, defenses weakened, there was a “one-sided moral disarmament”, as Timothy Snyder of Yale University said. However, this state of euphoria of the absolute consolidation of democracy was temporary, a chimera that put him in danger. Democracies have always been vulnerable, they are not static, their openness feeds the seeds of their degeneration, they require constant vigilance to make corrections when things go wrong. In euphoria, we forgot about it. “The biggest threat to democracy today is to believe that it is not threatened by anything,” said Mr. Mitakidis, who has made an academic career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cornell, the universities of Rochester and Southampton, and for three decades held high positions in European institutes of research, development, international cooperation.

“At the same time, in the early 1990s, with the birth of the Internet, there was a corresponding euphoria about digital technology.” He was at Mr. Mitakidis’ home in Brussels when he and his friend, MIT professor Michalis Dertouzos and Tim Berners-Lee, who had just invented the World Wide Web at CERN, figured out how to create the www consortium that brought the Internet to life. . . Michalis Dertouzos was then head of the Computer Science Laboratory at MIT, Mr. Mitakidis was director of the ESPRIT Information Technology Program in Brussels. “Tim wanted to give the world the world wide web, he didn’t want to patent it, make a profit. Dertouzos and I put Clinton Vice President Al Gore in touch with my political boss, Commissioner Bangeman, who both offered, through MIT and ESPRIT, respectively, a million dollars to form a World Wide Web Consortium with director Tim Berners-Lee.” And everyone began to believe “in a cultural renaissance that will strengthen democracy with the direct participation of informed citizens and transparent governments – no dictatorship can resist the flow of information – with the free flow of ideas and opinions; it was the finest gift in the world. This euphoria lasted for years.”

“In Germany, the USA, Japan, 30% are in favor of a strong leader who will not be hindered by the election results. The rise of populism, the decline of democracy around the world.”

During the Arab Spring of 2011, “democracy and digital technologies were linked at the peak of optimism about the dominance of democracy in countries where revolution has ignited thanks to the decisive contribution of social networks. It turned out to be a chimera. If we look at the statistics in these countries today, the citizens prefer an absolutely strong leader who would take the reins of government into his own hands, without democratic processes and parliaments. 87% citizens in Iraq, 81% in Tunisia, 73% in Lebanon, 71% in Libya, 65% in Mauritania, 61% in Sudan, 53% in Jordan, 51% in the Palestinian territories, 48% in Morocco. But even closer to us, in France, 47% think we need less democracy and more efficiency. In Germany, the USA, Japan, 30% are in favor of a strong leader who will not be hindered by the election results. The rise of populism, the decline of democracy around the world.”

Digital technologies followed a parallel course, continues Mr. Mitakidis. “Until the 2010s, no one sounded the alarm about the monopolistic practice of GAFAM + (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc.), no one saw any danger, the negative impact of digital technologies on democracy. Today the bells ring in both fields, as well as at their intersection. A recent example of the interaction of the two fields is the invasion of Bolsonaro supporters into government buildings. Months before the January 8 riots, the coup was originally planned in encrypted, unverified online spaces. These projects were then widely promoted through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Telegram and Gettr, which did not detect conversations to remove them. Democracy and digital technologies have deformed. From parallel euphoria, we were transferred to parallel anxiety.

What caused the wave of concern and the start of corrective actions? “Recently, several events have played a catalytic role, such as the billions lost in the collapse of some cryptocurrencies. They started as a democratic component of the financial system (transparent anonymous transactions without intermediaries, like banks), but were not at all democratic, controlled by one or more people. However, the most catalytic role was played by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, whose activities are detrimental to democratic processes. If he lived in 5th-century BC Athens, Musk would be a prime candidate for ostracism. He accumulates both wealth and immense manipulative power. People like Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos are demystifying, they are no longer heroes, they are no longer sympathetic, the market value of their organizations is falling… And the dangers are being recognized, the need to correct distortions, redefining the rules of the game is gradually increasing in both areas, as in in the field of democracy, and in the field of technology, as well as in their interaction. Perhaps one day we will be grateful to Musk or Bankman-Freed. Even Trump, who, with his aphorisms – i.e. repeal the constitution – alert the republic, although we are still far from the end of trumpism.

Because extreme people are the best clients of social networks

“Technology alone will not save or kill democracy, which is influenced not only by digital technologies, but also by other, very serious factors. In order for a democracy to adequately respond to growing economic inequality, immigration, internal degeneration of democratic processes, indifference, especially of young people, to political events, constitutional amendments must be made where necessary – in the US, which has always been a beacon of democracy, the Supreme Court has been completely politicized. While Citizen United’s decision, citing freedom of speech, lifted restrictions on campaign finance and allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited resources on elections, i.e. for campaign ads.

When it comes to digital technologies, what are the biggest risks they pose to democracy? “Manipulation of public opinion through social networks, as well as other means and polarization, which occurs as follows. Zuckerberg and others don’t want to hurt democracy, they want to make money. And they achieve this when the consumer is predictable and clicks on whatever ad they get. But the extremes are more predictable. The extreme ones are usually at peace with themselves, confident in their choice, and those in the middle doubt. So, even if companies aren’t looking for it, extremes are their best customers. This business model pushes towards extremes and polarization and has a negative impact on democracy. With extreme polarization, what Aristotle called the “mediation” necessary for the functioning of democracy disappears. In 2016, 47% of Republicans said that those who vote for Democrats are immoral and dishonest, in 2022 this percentage jumped to 72% … A society of two halves who do not speak to each other do not share the same facts, only mutual hatred. At the same time, there is a kind of mithridatism, we are slowly getting used to bad lyrics. Harari said at a recent conference that “the next US presidential election could be the last democratic in its history,” but there was no reaction from the audience.

What needs to be done? “To reduce the power of GAFAM+. In the EU, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Market Act (DMA) will come into force soon; the first puts barriers in the way of entry of technological giants into the market, the second reduces their ability to monopolize, as they do today. Musk-led Twitter will very soon come into conflict with the EU regulatory framework. So far, only the GDPR is in force, for many a bureaucratic regulation that many accept without reading, but it is the basis, it was the first step in the fight against a direct threat to the pillars of individual freedom. Daron Acemoglu proposes a proactive regulatory framework, i.e. saying “no” before the damage is done when the impending potential risk is too great – his book AI Harm will soon be published by Oxford Press. The same applies to medicines: a series of clinical trials are conducted before a drug is released to the market. It is in this logic that the AI ​​Law, a directive on artificial intelligence, was designed, which is also very obligatory for high-risk applications that, through manipulation, threaten democracy. In the same vein, ways are being sought to break up tech giants into smaller companies, as happened in the US with the Sherman Act, a law proposed by Senator Sherman on the grounds that excessive concentration of power hurts democracy. Then the oil company Standard Oil and then the telecommunications company AT&T split into smaller companies. The Sherman Act, which allows the state to liquidate a company only if it negatively impacts prices and consumer choice, cannot apply to GAFAM+, who claim to provide their products for free. Thus, an attempt is being made to include in the antitrust laws the prevention of a combination of political and economic power that could harm democracy.”

What else is required? “Education. A non-Zuckerbergian metaverse may multiply the negatives of social media, but integrating virtual reality into education and using artificial intelligence to empower citizens will unimaginably expand the possibilities of accessible education that can fundamentally change the world.”