Future Of Social Media Futurist Gerd Leonhard's Keynote NEC Forum'21 PT

Hello, this is Gerd Leonhard and welcome to my podcast. I'm here today to speak to you about the future of social media. And I've had great experience with social media in the last decade myself. So I have some ideas about how we can improve this. But basically what is happening is that social media has become an algorithmic medium. And there's lots of good things about algorithms, of course, but media is something that is human. It's something that is really important to us as a human way of communicating. It's kind of like food, you know. Of course we could eat other food, but we like real food. And so this is a real problem, I think, when we think about what's happening in media, how that's changing our environment, our society. And clearly we have to start with one question about the future. You know, people talk to me about this a lot when they say, well, you know, when we look at the future, they want to know what the future brings. But this is a completely wrong question. The question is not what it can bring because literally the future can bring anything. The future is technically speaking in 10 years capable of bringing pretty much anything. What we want is to figure out what do we want our future to be? What kind of future do you want for your kids? And this is the important question for social media and for media in general because when it's about our future, it's about governments, it's about politics, It's about policy, it's about how we hold up together, it's about so many basic human things. And this is the question of what we want from social media and how exactly, what kind of output are we going to define, and is this going to be providing human flourishing? Years ago, we had concerns about automation. This is Charlie Chaplin, of course, from a long time ago. And now we're worried about this, a kind of automation and technological unemployment and computers taking over everything. Many of us are thinking about that being the end of work. I'm not sure about that, but basically what is happening is that algorithms and machines and robotics and the smart intelligent algorithms and software is kind of leading us to a path of potential dehumanization, which means taking out the human element because it's kind of in the way. My friend Douglas Rushkoff talks about this a lot when he talks about Team Human, when he says basically they're treating us as if we are the problem, so the system would be great if it wasn't for the humans. And in Silicon Valley, where I lived a long time, it's kind of like a lot of people say, well, basically the real problem here is that there are humans in the way. We have to get the humans out and build systems that work with just the data. And that's exactly what we got from social media so far— Facebook, Twitter, and many others that I also use a lot but experiment with, because here's the challenge with this. We are facing a scenario where first we had, or we have, the climate change challenge, which is a result of pollution. And now we have a technological pollution, basically human change, as technology is changing who we are and what we think of and what we choose, what we buy and how we react. And as technology is absolutely everywhere and unavoidable, We're facing a double challenge: climate change and human change, the change of the way that we communicate and talk to each other. Clearly, for me, it's clear that the externalities and the unintended consequences of unlimited, unmitigated exponential growth and progress, that it will surpass the problems then that we have with climate change, with the fossil fuel economy. The side effects of all these things will be bigger than the side effects of oil and gas. Because they're going to change us as humans and our perception of ourselves and our democracy, our society, and our immediate future in the next 20 years. In many ways, you could say that social media has a lot of parallels with the oil and gas industry and fossil fuel, which is now kind of coming to the end with the end of oil in the next decade. But clearly, social media has the same basic components. There's lots of data which has become the new oil, and that data is wanted by everybody to drive their cars, so to speak. But externalities, the problem and the change of how people are thinking, that is basically somebody else's problem. That sounds exactly like Shell or ExxonMobil some time ago when we talked about what is happening with climate change. Well, that's not our problem because people want to drive cars. That's why we have $5 trillion fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas so we can drive cheaper. And what we have now is very much the same. We use technology to extract data, and then we sell that, and all the other consequences, well, that's not our business, let the state worry about that, or some civil rights group or somebody. That cannot continue, it's utterly unsustainable, especially because we're moving into a future where artificial intelligence will follow the same path. Right now it's about intelligent machines and assistants, digital assistants, more like IA, intelligent assistants. And then we're going towards general intelligence of machine. That's 10, 15, 20 years away, maybe 30 for what's called the singularity. But the social media dilemma is just the very first example of what is happening here. That example means that it can go seriously wrong if we don't ask the question of why are we doing this? And who is doing it and how can we control this. So it's only the first iteration of what we're seeing in social media. So just picture social media challenges, artificial intelligence challenges, human genome editing challenges, and on the story goes. So we need to get this right now because it will set the precedent for the future. We're going into a future like this. I'm going to go in the future, 2030, artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, quantum computing, language processing will mean that anything becomes possible, pretty much anything becomes possible, and machines will rival the logical capabilities of humans. Now imagine that moment comes nearer and nearer and nearer, we let machines sort of run the show, what kind of results are we going to get? Potentially some very good ones, very smart ones, and then basically being out of control, taking the human out of the loop, living in a society that is essentially an algorithm. That is not something that we would want, especially not here in Europe, I don't think, because we can also count on the very fact that technology will always be abused, like this technology, a self-driving car where people are sleeping while they're driving. That could definitely have a very bad ending. And if we look at social media and general media, based on algorithms like this, we're going to have a lot of accidents. And we're going to use technology for what it wasn't intended. Because technology is changing our world exponentially. It's very hard for us to understand Moore's Law, Metcalfe's Law, the Law of Networks. You've seen all that stuff, but basically it means the future is explosively changing. Look at this one, the exponential cost reduction, all going towards zero. Whether it's genome editing or solar or batteries or data storage, right? We're living in a world that is vastly different, is not changing step by step, and this is very hard for us to get here in Europe. It's not 4, 5, 6, 7, it's 4, 8, 16, 32, it's leaping. And if we get it right now, we can make a good future from what we have now with technology, or it can just leap away and then we're kind of stuck there dealing with the consequences. I really believe that the more we connect with technology, the more we must protect what makes us human. Sounds kind of like an oxymoron. How can you have both? But this is what we always do with technology. You know, it's not technology's fault that it can be too powerful. We need to find rules around it. As Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, likes to say, technology can do great things, but it does not want to do great things. It doesn't want anything. And so it's really important that if we want something, that we set forth and make the rules and the circumstances, because really what technology is doing, it's driving itself, right? It's an unsustainable and corrosive obsession with exponential growth. And of course, the source of that really is Silicon Valley and China to some degree. Algorithmic media putting us in a box, selling our data, and milking us for the future profit. And that is not always a bad thing when we're used to it and we allow it, but in general, we're going to have to go beyond this. That is not what we signed up for, literally, because technology can initially be a kind of a present, and then it turns into a bomb very quickly, just like anything that's too much of a good thing. Think about cigarettes, alcohol, food, whatever you want to look at. In this direction clearly lies trouble when we go beyond what is good and we use it so much that it becomes really a crutch to our lives. Too much of a good thing can be a very bad thing, especially in technology that deals with data. Because, you know, I said years ago data is the new oil, but now data is kind of the new plutonium. It can be used as a weapon, and it is being used as a weapon, and this is only the beginning of it. That we need to prevent and figure out how we can create transparent standards and identity standards and security measures for our citizens and for everybody else. That's why we are talking about ethics, right? These are the rules of engagement as we go forward into a world that is looking at technology as a religion, essentially. And that's looking at technology as a substitute for human relationships, to where you can say you have more relationships with your screen than you have with real people. Or of course, a future that substitutes our reality in virtual reality. That may be great for doctors, dentists, lawyers, and policemen, but think about that for yourself and how that will change our social environment. Definitely kind of too much of a good thing. As you can see here with Facebook, Oculus Rift, the Infinite Office, we are looking at a future where that's becoming possible, like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, pulling out the data and making it come alive. In front of you. Yeah, could be a boon, especially in time of home working, working from home, fantastic. But on the other hand, let's not mistake a clear view with a short distance, and that this can actually work and give benefits like it seems to, says my colleague Paul Saffo, a fellow futurist. And also the King Midas problem, let's be careful what we wish for. We may wish for that to happen, but then when it happens, It's like everything is turning into gold and we can't eat gold. And we can't connect with humans anymore because now we're wearing this outfit. Very important when we think about social media, think about the context of that as we're moving into a world where we're going to speak to technology. We're going to use voice interfaces, natural language processing. We're going to speak in 50 languages in real time. This is all happening in the next couple of years. And then we look in this direction it's quite clear that software could not be just kind of eating the world as Marc Andreessen has said 15, 20 years ago, right? It could also be cheating the world very easily because we wouldn't know what to think about it and it's kind of the black box problem here. We don't really know what's inside, we just trust it. Do you trust Google Maps? Another one of those questions, well, sometimes, right? Would you trust social media to give you accurate information? And would that be a filter of a sort like we have in traditional television? How exactly would that work? We cannot afford technology to cheat the world for us. We have to go a little beyond that. The idea of the super brain in the sky doing all the things for us sounds very convincing and of course would make trillions of euros. Data is the new oil, super brain and the plutonium, and artificial intelligence is the electricity, the power that runs through it. And that is going to be mapped out in the future into tens of trillions of euro enterprises that will be going into the future, pulling us there where Milton Friedman said this is really what they should be doing, the economic paradigm of the '70s, to engage its resources and engage in activities that will increase the profits. That's the purpose of the economy. That was in the '70s, and now we're thinking that is probably not going to work because Free markets will not solve that problem for us. It won't solve climate change. It won't solve data regulation because those are the things that make us more of a holistic thinker in an environment where we need a larger story, a stakeholder economy, people, planet, purpose, prosperity, not just one thing. And this, of course, is not a black or white question because sometimes technology can be amazing. And positive and sometimes not. The question really is when humans and machines collaborate like this, technology is morally neutral until we use it. So whose morals do we apply? Well, the lowest common denominator of our collective society. What exactly do we stand for? Not on every tiny detail, but on the bottom line of what we achieve. For example, in media it's quite clear, we want human media, we want media that means something, that has relevance, that is accurate, that is true to some degree. And in Europe, clearly we have this sort of collective approach and we have the humanistic advantage. And that seemed like a disadvantage, you know, 20 years ago, but now it is an advantage and we're saying, you know, our world is more than just profit and GDP and growth. It's people, planet, purpose, and prosperity. That needs to be the principle for media as well. And that needs to be folded into any media provider if they're doing it voluntarily or otherwise, to think about how we can integrate this. This is the only question that matters for us: does it make sense? Does it have purpose? Does it deliver value? Why should I be doing it? Not just that I can do it. This is the why question that we have to answer, the ultimate question of humanity, of course. Why and who, not just if or with what kind of tools. We're moving into a future where everything is going to be in the cloud, everything, our healthcare records, our financial records, and then the question of good or bad is the fundamental question, and safety and security. Technology drives our societies, but ethics define it. And if we want ethics to define society, that speaks about social media, right? Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the power and the right to do and what is the right thing to do. And now we have to sit down and say, what is the right thing to do for social media? What is definitely not— we know what's not the right thing, the good thing. That's a good start. Now we have to define what is the right thing to do. Respect for human rights, respect for democracy, furthering human flourishing, having collective benefit. Because humans aren't just algorithms, they're not just being programmed into responses like a giant Pavlov dog. We are beyond algorithms, we are more than that. What matters to us mostly is engagement, experiences, relationships, coming together. And that's why it's so important that media becomes re-humanized again because humans aren't binary, yes or no. We have lots of things in between. We're not a machine, we're not algorithm, we're not easily forced into a model like an AI would be. We're organic, constantly changing. And so that has to be put back into media in some way that goes beyond the tools of the first edition of social media. Here, picture with Facebook taking a very good aim at democracy. What do we want our future to be? Well, do we want this? You know, these are the choices: democratization, or disinformation? Collective society or polarization that we have in many extreme social media countries like in China and the US and Brazil? Do we want conversation or do we just want to make more money and fake conversation? Do we want to create togetherness and collectiveness or loneliness, which we have plenty of on social networks? Do we want human actions and human feelings and human things, you know, the androrhythms? Emotions, respect, imagination, creativity, design, or do we want the machine to tell us what the future holds and what we're allowed to do? We're moving into a world of these mega shifts. I talked about this a lot in my previous book, and you can download the chapter here for free, megashifts.digital. But it's basically all of those things shifting together in a quickly moving pattern that gets us into the future in a very fast way, And this is going to be crucial, that we re-humanize technology to create human values and to not go further and to watch that layer between too much of a good thing and definitely too much of a good thing. And that needs to be put into practice. So some practical tips here clearly are coming forth from all different sides. And of course, Ursula von der Leyen has said this many times about that we have to take those decisions that are coming, and we can't just leave it to an AI or the boardrooms in Silicon Valley. That needs to be decided right here and now. We have to take that right back to stay human, to be human. And that goes, for example, for things like this. You know, as we're estimating what data should decide, bias prevention, diversity, transparency, trying to get a machine to understand why that's important. These are soft skills and and soft issues, and they have to do with emotions and beliefs and feelings. So we need to put the human back in there and create an agenda that is worthy of humans, not just the machines, to create a scenario where that is becoming important again. And that also means that the companies who are providing technology, not just social media and search, but also 5G networks, telecom networks, ICT companies, and so on, that we have to ask them as well to give us a promise that this matters again, right? To put the human back inside, to create an environment where humans are important and where we create benefit for humans, not just benefit that is on the financial side, but overall benefits. So here's some ideas about how to rehumanize, some possible solutions to look at how we can do this. First, redesign social network completely from scratch, collective values, and ethics over monetization. And that needs to be thought about when we think about advertising campaigns and cookies and tracking. And right now is a very good time to do that with all the recent technology changes. Reprioritize and benefits for all stakeholders in that value chain, not just the shareholders and the owners of technology. Always keep the human in the loop, even if it's less efficient or slower or more expensive Put the human in the loop. For the time being, that is the only way we're going to get human value. We need to treat media just like other media. Social media has to be treated like the traditional media industry, or of course the new media industry taken altogether. But there has to be some sort of regulation on this one. Appointing a regulator for social media, that has been done in some countries, I think that's by and large also a good idea. And then we should consider some more dramatic action, like considering a minimum ratio of revenues versus human beings who actually work there, so that we can enforce the idea of actually using humans for human jobs. And think about the automation tax, and when media gets automated, to support public media. I know these are probably radical thoughts, especially when you think about the free markets and so on, but let's entertain possibilities. I think, to go back to the old Cherokee Indian saying, The wolf you feed is the wolf that wins. If we feed the wolf that we want to win, that will be the wolf of equality and collective society and collective benefit, then that's something that is going to require things like the digital ethics councils that we already have at this table now, that I've been speaking about for roughly 5 years, and it's starting to come together in different places. And maybe we need to enlarge this and think about this in the form of a humanity ethics council beyond just digital but also going towards, of course, genetic engineering and so. Very big topic but a council of the wise people, that is really what I'm talking about here and I think we have lots of potential good candidates here. So I want to wrap up by saying very important I think it is for me that we embrace technology, we embrace progress, we move forward, we improve, We built economies, we embrace technology, but we don't want to become technology. And social media is the very first place where we need to put that example in place and create a collective beneficial future for all of us. This is Gerd Leonhard, futurist. Thanks for listening to my podcast. Check out my videos at gerdtube.com on YouTube.