The digital economy benefits the 1%. Here’s how to change that. | Ramesh Srinivasan | Big Think

The digital economy benefits the 1%. Here’s how to change that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intentional or not, certain inequalities are inherent in a digital economy that is structured and controlled by a few corporations that don't represent the interests or the demographics of the majority.

While concern and anger are valid reactions to these inequalities, UCLA professor Ramesh Srinivasan also sees it as an opportunity to take action.

Srinivasan says that the digital economy can be reshaped to benefit the 99 percent if we protect laborers in the gig economy, get independent journalists involved with the design of algorithmic news systems, support small businesses, and find ways that groups that have been historically discriminated against can be a part of these solutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramesh Srinivasan

Ramesh Srinivasan is Professor of Information Studies and Design Media Arts at UCLA. He makes regular appearances on NPR, The Young Turks, MSNBC, and Public Radio International, and his writings have been published in the Washington Post, Quartz, Huffington Post, CNN, and elsewhere.

Purchase Ramesh Srinivasan's latest book, Beyond the Valley: How Innovators around the World are Overcoming Inequality and Creating the Technologies of Tomorrow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

RAMESH SRINIVASAN: A digital economy and world that work for the 99 percent are one where, is one where technologies don't support the interests of some at the cost of others. They're sort of a zero sum mentality that can end up costing all of us actually at the end of the day. A digital economy produces prosperity and value for all. It does support business interests. It does support the great developments for consumers that a lot of digital platforms have provided, but that doesn't come at the cost of economic security, of worker security, of diverse opinions, of racial minorities, of indigenous peoples, of women. The issue is that right now our digital world through the technologies that have globalized to the world are more or less structured, influenced and dominated by a few technology companies that are located in a small sliver of the world – in Silicon Valley, in Seattle and also actually in China. And they all have different kind of outcomes. But the people who are leading these companies not only are they supposed to develop technologies for their private interest, never mind the effects on the rest of us, but they tend to be in terms of demographics not representative of the vast majority of their users. We don't see many women. We don't see many racial minorities. We do see some Asian and white males.

And so as a result, intentionally or not, they are coding into the digital world outcomes that are generative of greater inequality. And it's really important to just situate this on top of what our world looks like right now and even our country looks like. Three people or so with the equivalent wealth to 195 million in this country. Whoever would have imagined that. That all has happened in the past few decades. Globally seven or eight people, depending on what estimates you look at, with equivalent wealth to 3.9 to 4 billion people approximately. These are different estimates on this. That wasn't even created by the internet and digital technology. But the internet and digital technology are amplifying these problems.

So what can we do about these inequalities that we face right now? On the one hand we can see these inequalities as reasons to be upset, concerned, anxious, nervous and critical. And that's fine. I understand where that comes from. But, to me they represent alternatives and opportunities for us to actually engage in productive, progressive, pragmatic action.

So first of all, every single person who is in danger of losing their job, losing their economic security which is already happening needs to be acknowledged, addressed and humanized not just through lip service but by actually presenting economic opportunities for those people. So in other words what I'm getting at on the economic level are jobs that are shifting to the gig economy, right, like Uber drivers and so on, that many sort of studies are showing are likely the gateway to an automated world. Those people need to be protected. They either need to be presented with new types of jobs that are just, that are dignified...

[bigthink]

How can you change the digital economy to benefit more people?

[scottsprojects]

The YouTube algorithm should be updated to grow the small channel instead of keeping the big channels big

[stch]

The digital economy benefits the majority. Some people even have mobile phones in North Korea and can access information from the outside. There were pretty much no examples. fix the economy? lookout for the entry-level workers? The capitalist system is based on a fair price. The way to make a profit in society is by adding value. Yes, This is easier to do in a digital market, but it's definitely not the only market. As a computer scientist I've worked with Machine learning algorithms, I know that most if not all the code for AI are open source so everyone and small business can use it (I run a small business). One big issue is a countries GDP is correlated to its population's IQ. Countries also suffer from brain drain. One of the biggest/strongest most empowering things for any person is education and access to data. Which is ironically solved by the digital world. This makes sense because most wealthy people are the ones who added value and solved the most problems for as many people as they could. eg: google so people have access to data (before googling it was the library!). So the argument is well-meaning. You touch on so many things. Define the issue with examples, what's the goal? do you have an idea on a fix?


"A digital economy and world that work for the 99 percent are one where is one where technologies don't support the interests of some at the cost of others. They're sort of a zero-sum mentality that can end up costing all of us actually at the end of the day." How? Real-world example?

I agree new types of jobs taken by mass automation should be looked at, or even a tax on AI given the AI is cutting into the intelligence and ability of a person. With an AI tax, it would be nice to bring down the cost of living so much that portions of the workforce wouldn't need to work or work less.
Yes, AI been disruptive in politics is very scary. auditing is a good thing. been cautious is a good thing. Equal opportunity for all is a good thing. AI bias has been corrected is a good thing, especially when profiling people. Ai is just a tool (a powerful one) that use it for good.

Most people (not all in my experience) love the underdog, and love to hate on the 1%. villainizing the rich and messing with the economy won't work.

[Rensune]

The Central Banks benefit the 1%.

The Digital economy has, since it's creation, benefitted Everyone.

Since the creation of Crypto currency this is even more clear.

[MysterEarl]

Problem: most of those you want more representation of don't possess the skills needed. This isn't a big idea, it's a big wish.

[LANBobYonson]

Some people are missing the point. Think about it like this: we are all making money for YouTube joining channels, donating in super chats, and even just watching ads, but in many cases we don't see any of that money we make them come back to us. It ends up in the pockets of the people on top and the employees (not including the actual YouTube content creators), which are a small few compared to how many people spend their money on YT. One of the biggest problems with this site is that most individual YouTubers making money on this site still need to pay 20% tax rates to their country for being "self employed". YouTube doesn't even take care of the CORE people making their site successful and it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD. There are countless examples of why YouTube is toxic and there are countless more examples of other online businesses being as bad. Before the internet CEOs made a fair % more money than their employees but with an online business model the CEOs make exponentially more money than they would if they didn't have the internet to grow their businesses to as ridiculous a big as they are AND they are abusing the internet, finding loopholes where they don't need to pay as much as they would if it were a "physical" business. Extreme example, not comparable in scope at all and I don't mean to make light of it, but imagine all the people who were okay with slavery when it was legal until people realized how terrible it was and fought for it to be abolished. In general, because it's the norm, we are okay with unfair online business models feeding too much into the 1% and people are suffering because of it. A radical change needs to be made to course correct for people working online to be given their fair share.

[dious]

I'm a small business owner and I have no idea what is this guy bumbling about. Maybe define digital economy for us first. As I understand it, I'm able to compete with the big boys in my industry exclusively because economy is so heavily digital.

[vt]

It’s easy to speak in general terms. It doesn’t speak to the population that don’t agree with you.

[pyromaster]

I think you are pointing at a mass interaction stress. I think people still adapt to the web.

[thstroyur]

Getting strong _dejá vù_ vibes from this one; repost, anyone?

[regislafrance]

Let's give power to "reputable" Journalist that has worked so well with msm, now we need to teansfer that to the one place in the world where everyone is actually free.

[elizabethj]

I don’t think he’s advocating a redistribution of wealth so much as a socially conscious hr system in tech. Has anyone done any research on the formal social education of big tech hires? Is that even looked at. I would not be too keen on too many hires with government backgrounds. Although my algorithm is clearly a mindless, shopping heavy circus of misinformation I think the first control should go to the user. Some of my Ads deeply offend me as a working class person; crap online colleges, scam credit consolidation and casino apps. I don’t have the right to block them because of the neighborhood I live in! Let’s start with the users rights, then we can work on a non middle class Uber driver affording shares in a publicly traded company. Sir, go write for the wall street journal before it forever stays a rag. Also: SCREW CRYPTO.

[ThePholosopher]

Free the market. Get government out of the market including abolishing taxation, licensing fees, health insurance requirements, etc. Have government stop violating people's property rights, and allow people the complete freedom to trade and own property through voluntary and peaceful means.

[bcaominh]

I would caution to use identity politics under the facade of “inclusion& diversity” to create marketable consumer groups with specific identities. What it does- it dehumanizes humans by making them two dimensional. Humans are more than their digital identity.

[BruceWaynesaysLandBack]

Workplace Democracy. We’re dealing with another form of authoritarianism: Capitalism

[Adam_Lyskawa]

When you're talking about no control over big tech and AI, you're right. But please, really do not have in mind any equality of outcome. I don't know about which racist country do you talk about, but if there is a racism in the west, in USA, Canada or Europe (no matter western or eastern), the only racism we have now is anti-white racism, and it's again not powered by normal people, but by elites looking for profits in it. Well, there is even one really full blown anti-white racism in... South Africa.


OK, now about 1%... I live in the country that once (not so long time ago) had the system with "equality of outcome". Yep, that doesn't work, that NEVER does work. So, my grandparents were dirt poor. My parents were dirt poor. They didn't even have ANY opportunity to improve their situation. We had no opportunities whatsoever beside... migrating to the west, to the "bad" capitalistic country, where so much of inequality dwells. It happened in early 90's, the policy of our country has changed. We joined EU soon after. We gladly embraced those inequalities, that "unfair" system, where some people suddenly start starving, that wasn't the case before. But lot of others could finally develop. Could achieve. Could taste much better and fuller life without the need to migrate.


I'm not very rich person. I run my own company, but it's small business and I struggle to survive. But I think that capitalistic system is way, way better than what we had before. I've seen all this with my very eyes. Of course - what we have here is mutated capitalism, where the middle class almost doesn't exist. Why is that? Because the richest is untaxed and above the law. Because there are almost no taxes on accumulated capital, and insanely high taxes for labor and small enterprises. So, every hard working man, even every hard working entrepreneur, wanna-be business man is literally destroyed by taxes while the owners of the world pay nothing. Than, there is of course the situation of oligarchy, when the owners of the world own politicians, parties, courts, media... And yes, they own the Internet too. It's not good for anyone beside probably 1%.

[markkravitz]

👋👍 To solve the human equation, we need to add love, subtract hate, multiply good, and divide between truth and error. A money maker @evenkingsfall (his insta) never stops saying you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that vision! Keep up the good content ⚡️

[valecx]

agreed with him all along, got terrible at the end tho.

[avicennam]

Agreed with some points but not others. As kids should learn to code from year dot onwards then no problem as you would just get some poor people to do basic coding then people in high school can do technical coding so it is just small costs for software and cannot be sold for a high price making it useless to be a coder only if you know maths at a high level. Hate big businessman they are monsters in human flesh.

[danielweis]

Just abolish poverty with a basic income. Problem solved! All this pandering to identity politics needs to stop real fast.