3.5. Academia: On structural change, design imperatives and new social divisions

The Internet as the trigger for a cultural transformation

The academic community’s very broad and multi-faceted view on the subject, extends far beyond the limits of their own fields or disciplines. The increasing digitalization of the everyday world is viewed as a great opportunity, but also as the trigger of a profound cultural transformation with far-reaching technological, economic, political and social implications (examples cited include: the “Internet of Things”, diversified Internet-based business models, a new understanding of the individual person, communication and social interaction).

Academics are considering carefully the Internet’s potential to bring about change, its opportunities and its risks. But the results of the discussion are quite clear: the opportunities ultimately outweigh the risks. They consider the risks to be manageable, as long as they actually get addressed.

“We basically need to understand the Internet as gift – a gift to mark the turn of the millennium. […] We can either accept this gift and nurture it, or we can be reckless and careless, and ruin it. The law plays an important role in this, but by no means the most important role. It will always be a combination of legal, economic, technological and sociological factors.”

The academic community is in a position to consider the Internet from a wide range of perspectives and levels of perception. They themselves are part of their own research subject; they see the Internet from the inside as well as from “outside”.

Academics themselves tend to be enthusiastic Internet users and are especially active on social networks. They are fascinated by the enormous potential unleashed by the merging of previously separate spheres such as research and application. They might immerse themselves in the world of the “Internet community”, but maintain a certain amount of reflective distance at the same time. They might have their own Facebook page, and use it actively, but explain this as part of their research – as a self-experiment.

“I myself am very active on Facebook, simply because I want to explore – and need to explore – how this network works. I conduct research on this, so I treat it as a kind of self-experiment. For example, how casual I am, in fact, about posting content? Or how complicated are the privacy settings?”

Overall, the academic community sees the Internet in a very positive light – as a major asset that has enriched daily life and become indispensible to it. It is indispensible, on the one hand, at the everyday level by providing the supporting infrastructure for teaching and research (the Internet as a tool for acquiring information, facilitating communication and collaborating with other members of the academic/research community, as an e-learning platform). On the other hand, the Internet itself is the subject of considerable research. Much to the dismay of the academic community, however, this research remains very much underappreciated and tends to be oversimplified by the players in other sectors (especially in government/policy, but also in sectors such as education and media).

“What you need, first and foremost, is top people in government – in the federal government in the state governments – who can place this issue where it belongs, which is at the very top of the agenda.”

For members of the academic community, the Internet will inevitably bring fundamental change to conventional concepts of reality, legal order, social structure and democracy. While their assessment is sober and straightforward, they do emphasize the need for proactive design as a way to avoid new social divisions.

“This kind of ‘digital divide’ between the different ways people use the Internet will, I believe, continue to deepen. There already exists a kind of Internet elite who know how to use the Internet to advance their careers or climb the social ladder. And there are those who don’t manage to do this at all, who use the Internet as a kind of virtual space for their everyday tasks, but in no way use it to improve their social status. […] Exclusion mechanisms are of course not just virtual; they remain social, so it remains to be seen how much this ‘peer pressure’ of the virtual society is superimposed on social structures/social behavior in real life.”

Describe, compare and gain an overview

The academic community, like the media, tends to relativize the issue. It is less interested in formulating its own point of view and more interested in considering the field as a whole and identifying future challenges of the digital society. Required is an interdisciplinary approach that is able to shed light on as many aspects of the issue as possible, so that they can then be introduced into the social discourse.

The academic community also sees it as their task to unravel and reduce the complexity of the issues being debated. They want to break the issues down so that they become easier to understand and more accessible to less-informed decision makers and to a broader cross-section of the population.

Some members of the academic community are linked to decision-makers from other social sectors such as politics, business, media and law. They use these professional networks to collaborate on solutions and call attention to new aspects and new demands. These academics like to see themselves as admonishers who are not afraid to “stick their finger in the wound” by focusing on the more challenging, troublesome and previously neglected issues related to the Internet. They also see them- selves in a networking role – establishing connections between different social sectors and academic disciplines. It is their broad and well-grounded perspective on this issue that makes it possible for them to provide an accurate, reliable overall look at the situation.

“The concept of surveillance, for example, needs to be considered from different perspectives. We’re familiar with government control and monitoring, but Google also monitors my user behavior and gathers data on it. If I do a search for ‘homosexuality’, for example, Google knows that. Google includes that information in the data it compiles and this then becomes something that could be used against me. If I have a cell phone or smart phone, Facebook will know where I am at all times. So how do I monitor Internet companies, who themselves conduct monitoring, but in a much different way?”

The majority of academics see their role as consultants to decision-makers in government and business. They want to do more than just diagnose the situation and offer criticism; they also want to contribute their respective expertise to solving the urgent problems together with the decision-makers. They want to actively help shape the future of the Internet and demonstrate what needs to be done over the long term to promote a sustainable digital society into the future. They see a long road ahead. But it is a road that absolutely needs to be traveled because, according to their experience, today’s end-users know practically nothing about the issues.

“People will come up to me after I’ve given a talk and say ‘I had no idea that it works that way.’ And that’s just not right, that’s not good enough. It’s as if we all live in this country and have actually no idea how our political system is set up. Now I know that if people start asking about this stuff they will end up being pretty disillusioned, but stuff like ‘Bundestag’ and ‘chancellor’ – people have at least heard these terms before and can maybe say a word or two about them. This kind of rudimentary knowledge needs to be there too when it comes to Internet issues. It’s important – and it’s where we are trying to make a contribution.”

All sectors need to catch up regarding the Internet – except for business

Academics tend to think in terms of interdependencies, feedback loops, and the interconnectedness of all things. Their agenda includes not only the issues, social sectors and their mutual dependencies, but also the various players, i.e. decision-makers from the various sectors. They could easily generate and distribute a list of “to-do’s” for these decision-makers in each of the sectors.

In the area of government and public policy, academics point to a significant lack of experience and know-how in Internet issues and the challenges of the future digital society. While policymakers do recognize the need for action and demonstrate some commitment to the issue, they are rarely informed enough to make good decisions.

“Of course it’s crucial to first establish a basic understanding for the situation and interrelationships – otherwise you will have failed regulation. Unfortunately today, we will need to start at the very beginning; with the basics. That is the huge issue right now in the area of Internet policy-making: how to get even a basic understanding of ‘this Internet thing’. But this is just a prerequisite; alone it is not enough. One also has to consider – and this is a legal issue – how do I establish a legal doctrine for the Internet, a structure of norms, that is both effective and appropriate in today’s world? It’s the issue of legal governance. Where can I use legal means to maintain the course and where does this approach no longer work?”

Academics regard private sector companies as a decisively important group – and one which has amassed a tremendous amount of power and leverage in recent years. IT companies take advantage of the ignorance and negligence of politicians and end-users, which allows them to operate on the Internet with considerable freedom and independence.

“It’s clear that companies like Facebook and Google have become unbelievably powerful, because they host a large part of the information that we either put on to the Internet or download from the Internet. And if you think about it, communication happens more and more through Facebook. “

According to academics, users have the obligation to inform and educate themselves, and need to develop a healthy skepticism towards new media technologies and the Internet. Instead, they say, people’s dealings on the Internet tend to be characterized by laziness and negligence. Thus, the user himself poses the biggest risk to his safety and security on the Internet.

“Whenever the government does anything, people’s first reaction is to assume the state is after them – looking to limit their freedom. But people seem to have this basic trust in certain companies – for no reason whatsoever. […] They trust a company like Google with endless amounts of data, for no good reason, except that Google is so nice and so stylish. At the same time, they scream the whole time at the top of their lungs ‘help, help, we want our privacy protected!’”

In the view of the academic community, the media sector is not yet doing enough to educate and sensitize users on the opportunities and risks associated with Internet usage. Academics suggest that this could be accomplished in the form of reporting and documentation, but also through the development of targeted education/training on the subject of the Internet.

“For adults this could be something like the 7. Sinn (earlier television program in Germany devoted to road traffic safety). Do you remember that? […] Back then, when 7. Sinn came on, people would sit down and watch it. But today television is no longer the medium of choice for everything […] You would need to find group-specific formats, […] short video clips that people could view when they have a free minute, like on You Tube or something downloadable – that would be good.”

According to academics, lawmakers are currently still in a process of orienting themselves with regards to the Internet and, since it remains a relatively new area, many issues and positions have yet to be conclusively defined:

“That’s the primary focus: IT security, threats, defense systems, Internet crime, combating crime. But there is also social media and the democratic processes that happen through these channels. The changes to society, to politics and policymaking; all that Web 2.0 brings with it. And then there are the technological innovations, such as cloud computing, and the question of how to create a legal framework around that, or how to create an effective legal framework around any technology or technical process.”

Academics find themselves in a dilemma with regard to their sphere of influence. On the one hand, their research can shed light on certain phenomena and introduce critical aspects of the debate into the social discourse; they see themselves in this role as consultants, especially for decision-makers in business and politics. On the other hand, they feel the results of their research often do not get enough recognition and, in turn, fail to get implemented by the right people in the right places.

“In order to perform its intended function, research needs to be recognized. One problem in my view is that Germany is relatively anti-science, anti-research; people are not ready and not willing to really look at the research results and deal with them.”

Reinforcing the significance of research and defining concrete needs for action

In nearly all relevant social sectors, academics see significant deficiencies in Internet experience and know-how. Because of its position as intermediary between the different sectors, and view of itself as the critical observer of the digital modernization process, the academic community considers it one of its most pressing challenges to help overcome these deficiencies, to define clear action measures and make the corresponding demands on the responsible decision-makers.

On the policy-making front, academics stress the need for lawmakers to formulate and establish fundamental minimum security standards for the Internet. Selected areas of the Internet should be subject to government standards; these are areas where there is already broad social consensus on the need for regulation. Important areas include youth protection (with particular attention to cyber mobbing), data protection (securing rights to personal data, transparency requirements for Internet providers). If it can succeed in establishing some norms in these areas, Germany could serve as a model for other countries.

“Regulation should focus on current challenges as they exist – on the national level, too. You constantly hear about the Internet as a global medium that can’t possibly be controlled or regulated […] also in the context of issues like security measures for protecting young Facebook users. […] There is a whole series of problems. As I said, cyber mobbing is a problem that often turns up in the classroom. That is certainly something that can be regulated at the national level.”

“I still think we need to set regulations for national-level providers and things that we can indeed regulate here in Germany. We have our national data privacy act; that works on the national level. Maybe this can be circumvented by international providers, who have their servers running in some other country and are no longer subject to our laws – but that actually isn’t so easy. A Facebook, for example, that operates here is also subject to our data privacy laws. So I really believe that we shouldn’t let ourselves be intimidated and buy into the idea that everything is so big and powerful, that we don’t have a chance and shouldn’t bother trying to do anything – and just sit here on the sidelines. If it’s important to us then we should do it, we should establish the regulations. And if it works well, it can be exported to other countries – like a model of regulatory success.”

At the same time, academics always see the other side of the coin. Calls for greater regulation can also be seen as movement in the direction of government censorship and abuse of power. Regulatory intervention on the Internet needs to be considered carefully. Are the regulations truly necessary? Are they commensurate to the situation? (Internet lockdowns are cited as an exaggerated means of regulation).

“There is a fine line between regulation and censorship. Especially on issues where people are calling for government intervention, there is still that close association between government and power constellations. And that is of course the problem: if we demand regulation, how do we ensure that this doesn’t turn into an abuse of power.”

Academics regard principles such as self-regulation and fairness as potentially effective regulating mechanisms and possible alternatives to government intervention (and especially relevant for the players in the business sector).

“In television there is this system of volunteer self-regulation where the broadcasting companies monitor and regulate their content themselves. In my view, that could be a model for online companies – that they themselves develop categories for their products on the basis of categories such as transparency or data security. I think that would be a model, a solution.”

Along with government and business, academics also believe that the education sector needs to fulfill its responsibility of informing, educating and raising awareness among Internet users. Basic media literacy is an important prerequisite for being able to use the Internet confidently, effectively, responsibly and in a way that minimizes personal risk. Media literacy should therefore be integrated into the educational mandate. The proper use of new media can be taught using hands-on, practical approaches based on modern teaching methods.

“It’s nothing less than a scandal – and it applies to Bavaria just as to all of the other states in Germany. It’s a scandal how little the ministers of education seem to know about the Internet and digitalization – and the opportunity that this represents for education and our schools. It’s just absurd how we continue to use these outdated teaching methods and outdated teaching materials here in Germany – even though the best materials and the best methods for motivating young people are available.”

“We could be doing a lot more in the schools. In Germany we still do not teach media literacy in the schools. It’s not a regular part of the curricula. […] The government could certainly set requirements for the curricula, for example, so that things like Internet become a regular part of the curriculum.”

Besides addressing today’s concrete issues, and developing appropriate courses of action, the academic community is looking into the future to understand how the Internet is changing specific social parameters, and what this means for society as a whole.

In the area of politics and democratic processes, academics see the need to establish a reasonable balance between the opportunities that the Internet offers with regard to open data/open government (citizen participation and co-determination) on the one hand, and the prospect of an absolutely, unconditionally open political decision-making process on the other hand. While citizen participation is, in their view, a democratic value worth defending and promoting, it is also important that certain negotiations and proceedings take place outside the public eye and that the representatives elected by the people have enough leeway to govern effectively and are allowed to make decisions in “secret” when necessary, so as not to jeopardize the government’s capacity to act.

“Transparency versus secrecy. That is a very important issue, because the trend today is clearly towards more openness – opening everything up and declassifying everything. And I think that is problematic. Because our culture is not based on this kind of completely open society. We are not accustomed to complete openness. […] We’re not at all ready for that. Secrecy does have its advantages. […] Policy-making is also about finding compromises and coming up with smart and reasonable policy solutions. If you completely open everything up from the beginning à la the Pirate Party, you won’t, any under normal circumstances, be able to achieve any results whatsoever. […] Or in the case of ACTA, I’ve got nothing against negotiations occasionally taking place behind clo- sed doors if they are difficult or sensitive – if additional pressure needs to be applied to a certain country to get them to move. You can’t do that kind of thing on the open stage. But the terms and conditions need to be communicated as such – and of course the people need to be given the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. I am not for unconditional openness.”

Academics regard the Internet as still a relatively new sphere of social activity, for which a system of norms, values and legal rights has not yet been definitively established. Instead, society is in the midst of a process of constant coordination, decision-making and adjustment – a process which must weigh the many factors and carefully consider the future configuration of our Internet environment. Future scenarios include very different online environments – from “comfort zones” on the Internet, where users can move safely and easily through the space, to “jungle” conditions, where norms and order do not exist. Ultimately, members of society must decide for themselves what they consider to be acceptable and desirable.

“Users should have the option of choosing a kind of basic service, where providers or vendors are obliged to guarantee a certain standard of security and be able to certify this in some way. So when I’m a user and I need to take care of a few basic needs on the Internet, I know, OK, those are the institutions I can work with. If I go with them, then I’m on the safe side. And everything else over there – that’s the jungle. If I want to go there that’s OK, but then it’s my problem, my responsibility.”

Academics see the Internet as a platform that offers people enormous new opportunity for individual actualization, for freedom of expression, for unleashing creativity and innovative power. But to truly take advantage of this opportunity, academics stress the importance of fairness as a guiding principle and call for a “culture of trust”.

“And that means we will have to establish new systems and ‘infrastructures’ of trust, business models, for example, where responsible companies can actually take the lead on the market and be rewarded for being truly honest and reliable, while other companies fall behind because they have not earned the trust of users?”