What was discussed…
It’s clear that anxiety and scepticism greet each new wave of technology and then – once it starts to be deployed, quickly becomes the norm. There are different responses from communities and regulators in responding to these changes.
Three key themes emerged during the discussion: age control, regulation of speech, and the impact of tech on society. How should we approach technology, and is it actually improving lives?
Age control
An important national debate is ongoing about the appropriate age for social media use with the government announcement proposing to ban social media for adolescents until the age of 16.
The “moral panic” around social media and children is clear, emphasising the need for guardrails such as age verification and assurance trials. However, technology to resolve these problems is currently limited. What is the solution: age verification or Face ID?
A technological approach could effectively prevent young people from accessing social media. However, it may not be fair to block young people from accessing communities they are eager to participate in and where they might find valuable social connections, especially if they feel isolated in their own communities.
A “sprinkler system” solution may be the answer, requiring alignment among school systems, families, social services, and medical professionals to define the end goal for social media regulation. It may be necessary to alter human behaviour, rather than regulate that behaviour.
Regulation of speech
Technology has an established effect on the democratic process and social cohesion through how it can disseminate misinformation and disinformation. It is clear that there is a grey area in regulated this type of speech, and approaches in each jurisdiction vary. Traditional thinking about free speech may need to be updated in light of technological capabilities and polarised societies.
What is the role of regulation: what does it aim to achieve, is it effective, and if it has gone too far or not far enough? How can we allow legitimate news sources to cut through the misinformation and disinformation? Should “free speech” be thought of as the right to transmit information, but also to receive information?
Unfortunately we are far from finding an answer to these questions. There is an instinct from the media and legislators to control what happens in “our communities” in Australia, but technology platforms are global, and so are the risks. Regulators worldwide must collaborate to ensure safety, privacy, and ethical AI.
An ethical principles-based approach to tech regulation is necessary so that regulations can be continuously adapted to keep up with changing technology. However, ethical principles can be ignored when they conflict with commercial imperatives.
The impact of tech on society
Despite the moral panic, technology has a clear positive effect on society.
New technology holds great potential to fill gaps in the system. “Empathic robots” were developed by 24-year-old mechatronics engineer Grace Brown, which are used in hospitals and nursing homes as companions and data collection points, enhancing both healthcare and patient happiness. Technology has also been developed enabling the visually impaired to “see” the world through aids that identify everyday objects (for example, identifying fruit in a supermarket and determining which fruit is the ripest).
Technology, especially AI, can empower individuals with creative ideas but no formal training to express their creativity. It has a democratising power, provided we have the necessary guardrails and that people can access legitimate news sources.
There is much more to consider. How is tech impacting the climate change and healthcare industries?
* * * * *
Thank you to Kristina Hewetson for her assistance in preparing this summary.
To ensure you don't miss out on future events, get in touch with our Baker McKenzie events team at BakerMcKenzieEvents.Australia@bakermckenzie.com.
