Read on Twitter
[Thread] Personal take-away after four days of #IGF2019:
In public parlance, the ideal of
„human-centric“ development has clearly won over aspirations to shape the digital transformation in a „socio-centric“ way.
To me, the difference is profound. Here is why:
In public parlance, the ideal of
„human-centric“ development has clearly won over aspirations to shape the digital transformation in a „socio-centric“ way.
To me, the difference is profound. Here is why:
„Human-centric“ implies an atomistic focus, which sees effects and responsibilities to act through the lens of the individual. It emphasises individual agency, which, in the digital society, translates to the idea of framing everything as an individual choice. 2/ #IGF2019
Under a human-centric paradigm e.g., web-wide privacy-invading tracking would not necessarily be a problem, as long as we are technically free to prevent this by opting-out - every time for every service. 3/ #IGF2019
In contrast, under a socio-centric paradigm the technical architectures would be put under the spotlight to analyse the kinds of uses they enable. This shifts the focus on the broader implications of tech development for the way we live together in the future. 4/ #IGF2019
Under a socio-centric paradigm, seemingly individual grievances with technology potentially matter for all, and „solutions“ are good when they support social cohesion. Does tracking support cohesion? 5/ #IGF2019
On a policy level, a socio-centric approach leads to favouring approaches that leave individual choice, but strive for common guidelines where the digitally-networked technologies we are developing tend to drive us apart. 6/ #IGF2919
All this is to say: Let us understand what is blurred when someone demands „human-centric“ development. And let‘s keep in mind that atomistic views are fashionable, but that we are in the digital society together. 7/7 #IGF2019
