HUMAN FREEDOM AND CHOICE - IN THE LIGHT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE 20 20 - St. Gallen ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
20
20
VOICES OF THE LEADERS OF TOMORROW
HUMAN
FREEDOM
AND CHOICE
IN THE LIGHT OF
TECHNOLOGICAL
CHANGEAbout the Nuremberg Institute for About the St. Gallen Symposium
IMPRINT
Market Decisions (NIM)
The Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions (for- The St. Gallen Symposium is the world’s leading ini-
merly “GfK Verein”) is a non-profit and interdisciplinary tiative for intergenerational debates on economic,
research institute dedicated to the systematic investi- political, and social developments. We bring together
gation of consumer and market decisions. The institute key decision makers, thought leaders, and brilliant
is also the founder and anchor shareholder of GfK SE. young minds to address current challenges and op-
portunities on transforming ideas into action. Since
At the interface between science and practice, the NIM 1969, we have fostered healthy debates and created
explores how market decisions are changing due to an outstanding community for exchange. We are a
trends, new technologies, and new sources of informa- student-run initiative combining excellence with inno-
tion. Our goal is to deepen the understanding of con- vation: A unique and extraordinary experience.
sumer decisions as well as those of marketing execu-
tives, and to use this knowledge to help improve the The Leaders of Tomorrow are a carefully selected,
quality of market decisions. global community of the most promising young tal-
ent. Each year, 200 academics, politicians, entrepre-
The NIM fosters the dialogue and cooperation with neurs and professionals around 30 years or younger
experts from science and practice, with innovators are invited to challenge, debate, and inspire at the
and startups who are particularly interested in market symposium. By questioning the status quo and repre-
decisions and market insights. Research results are senting the voices of the next generation, the Leaders
shared and discussed by the NIM through publications, of Tomorrow are at the very heart of the St. Gallen
conferences and lectures with its members, and the Symposium, making the conference a unique experi-
professional public. ence. Leaders of Tomorrow qualify either through our
global essay competition aimed at graduate students,
or they attend based on their professional or academic
merit through a strict hand-selection process. After the
symposium, they join our Leaders of Tomorrow Alumni
Community counting over 2,000 members worldwide.
Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions St. Gallen Symposium
Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen e. V. P.O. Box 1045
Founder and Anchor Shareholder of GfK SE 9001 St. Gallen, Switzerland
Steinstraße 21, 90419 Nuremberg, Germany Tel.: +41 71 22720-20
Tel.: +49 911 95151-983 E-mail: info@symposium.org
E-mail: hello@nim.org http://www.symposium.org
http://www.nim.org
© 2020 by Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission
of the copyright holders.
Please cite this publication as: Gaspar, C., Dieckmann, A., Neus, A. (2020):
Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow: Human freedom and choice in the light of technological change.
Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium | Cover picture: © Getty ImagesTopic Page
CONTENT
Introduction____________________________________________________________________________ 2
Overview: Participant statistics_____________________________________________________________ 3
Key insights____________________________________________________________________________ 4
Perspectives on individual freedom __________________________________________________________ 6
Inherited constraints: Freedom as an intergenerational problem____________________________________ 8
Freedom in the digital sphere: Trade-offs between restrictions and preservation______________________ 10
Technology and human agency: Decisions between convenience and control__________________________ 17
Looking ahead: Technological change and the future of freedom ___________________________________ 21
Concluding remarks_____________________________________________________________________ 26
References____________________________________________________________________________ 27
Sample and survey methodology:
Recruitment of the Leaders of Tomorrow_____________________________________________________ 282
INTRODUCTION
HUMAN FREEDOM AND CHOICE
IN THE LIGHT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
When the Iron Curtain fell, the global rise of freedom In the face of such disquieting developments around
and democracy seemed unstoppable, like a natural the globe, it is high time to revisit the concept of free-
course in human development. Today, thirty years dom and let the younger generation have their say on
later, things look different. The think tank Freedom what freedom means to them, and what their worries
House has, for 14 years in a row, recorded an alarming and hopes are, with a particular focus on freedom and
decline in global freedom, highlighting developments rapid technological change. The study gives voice to a
from the USA, to (not only Eastern) Europe, and all the selected group of future top talent: The “Leaders of
way to India (Freedom House, 2020). Tomorrow” from the network of the St. Gallen Sympo-
sium. Nearly 900 Leaders of Tomorrow from all over
At the same time, freedom in the digital sphere – the world accepted the invitation to share their opin-
a central pillar of the cyber-utopianism embraced al- ions about freedom and especially about the impact of
ready by the early computer pioneers (Turner, 2008) new technologies on human freedom.
– is being challenged. Utopian views of the Internet
survived the dot-com bubble and even experienced a Due to unforeseen circumstances, the focus of the
resurgence with Web 2.0, which offered unprecedent- present report became even more topical due to the
ed transparency, usability and accessibility resulting in COVID-19 crisis that has affected human societies all
greater opportunities for everybody to get involved around the world. Almost everywhere, we witness re-
(as highlighted by, e.g., Rushkoff, 2002). However, strictions of individual freedom to reduce the number
skeptical views also grew louder, pointing out the of infections and heated discussions about how far
“dark side of Internet freedom” (Morozov, 2011) and democratic governments should be allowed to go in
its vulnerability to authoritarian abuse. And indeed, their fight against the virus.
taking advantage of liberty and openness of the
Internet, fake news, hate speech, and political manipu- As the Leaders of Tomorrow represent top talent of
lation have caused damage around the globe, with the the younger generation, who will certainly shape fu-
Cambridge Analytica scandal (Graham-Harrison & Cad- ture economic developments and societies around the
walladr, 2018) marking just one low point in this trou- globe, the findings of this report will help the econom-
blesome development. Consequently, calls for greater ic and political leaders of today to better understand
regulation can even be heard from Big Tech’s executive the demands, opportunities and challenges in a rapidly
levels (Liao, 2019). changing world.
Claudia Gaspar and Dr. Anja Dieckmann,
Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions3
OVERVIEW: SAMPLE AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Online survey conducted in February 2020 with 898 Leaders of Tomorrow …
… personally invited through the network of the … both students and (young) professionals
St. Gallen Symposium
Recruitment Employment Status
St. Gallen
38 % Employees
Global Essay Competitors
48 %
15 % Entrepreneurs
52 %
Students
(not working)
37 %
St. Gallen Symposium
Leaders of Tomorrow Community 10 % Other
… mainly from Gen Y (Millennials) ... with a great variety of academic backgrounds
Year of birth Academic background
16 % 1996 or later 20 % STEM
Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
1991 to 1995
Social Sciences, Journalism & Information
43 % 30 %
Business, Administration & Law
1986 to 1990
28 % 40 %
13 % 1985 or before 10 % Other areas of study
… from more than 90 countries
all over the world4
KEY INSIGHTS
84%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
Call for a new social contract between generations on
sustainability, fairness, and the limits of freedom
blame the elder generation for having From the perspective of the Leaders of Tomorrow, unrestricted individual freedom is
granted themselves too much freedom not a viable solution for societies around the world. They take a clear stand against
at the expense of the younger genera- a purely egocentric interpretation of freedom and emphasize the need to show con-
tion, mainly in terms of environmental sideration for others, mostly valuing the welfare of society over individual freedom.
exploitation for the benefit of economic
growth to increase their own wealth Maximizing short-term profits, previous generations have caused environmental
and financial damages for which the next generations will have to pay. Their short-
term thinking has become a pertinent concern for the vast majority of the Leaders
of Tomorrow. The leaders of today would do well to address this concern proactively
and start an honest dialogue.
75%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
Restrictions demanded for protecting personal data and
preventing manipulation and verbal abuse in the digital sphere
recommend restricting the freedom Platforms are expected to work hand-in-hand with state institutions to better pre-
to express oneself freely on the vent online manipulation and abuse and to protect personal data. Most Leaders of
Internet if others are severely Tomorrow see state institutions in the lead for changing the rules of the game to-
insulted or verbally abused wards greater protection of data privacy and security, but technology providers are
under obligation as well. The Leaders of Tomorrow also advocate that personal data
should be controlled by its owners when it is used by online platforms.
The Leaders of Tomorrow take a very clear stance against unlimited freedom of
speech on the Internet. The majority thinks that platforms that until now have often
taken a “hands off” approach, rejecting content filtering by claiming they are “just
the messenger”, should be obliged to prevent and censor hate speech and fake news
on the Internet.
67%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
Pushback against technology that limits users’ freedom
of choice; users want to stay and feel in control
consider algorithms that filter Technological developments are viewed with ambivalence by the Leaders of Tomor-
the online content they see row. Mobile technology and filtering algorithms are not unanimously appreciated
as a restriction of their freedom for their convenience but also spark skepticism because they restrict, patronize or
of information simply interfere (e.g., by distraction) with a person’s free choice.
Collecting personal data by companies is viewed with particular suspicion when used
in new technologies and tools over which customers do not have the slightest control.5
High readiness to delegate certain decision tasks to AI,
but this varies considerably with the type of decision 53%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
Artificial intelligence (AI) support is embraced for a wide range of jobs. The willing- would involve AI in the process
ness to delegate responsibility and decision making varies according to the nature of selecting job candidates
of the job. This willingness is lowest for the delegation of selecting job candidates
and highest for granting customers discounts or setting surcharges. The option of
making the final decision oneself from a shortlist created by the AI is more often
preferred than the reverse option. Apparently, the Leaders of Tomorrow feel more
89%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
in control in this scenario. would involve AI in the process
of granting discounts or setting
surcharges for customers
Technology’s overall impact on freedom is seen with
some concern; transparency and ethical principles built
into technologies may drive future business models
93%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
see threats of technology‘s impact
Most Leaders of Tomorrow are cautiously optimistic about the general impact new on freedom in the world, more than
technologies will have on freedom in the world. However, more than a third of these a third fear more threats than
Digital Natives fear more threats than opportunities. opportunities
When evaluating technology-related scenarios in the near future (5 years from now),
there is a discrepancy between predictions and dreams: the most desirable scenar-
ios are not necessarily the most likely ones. These gaps may indicate opportunities
92%
of the Leaders of Tomorrow
for promising future business models. The largest gaps between strong desirability have a big desire for new business
and low probability concern morally motivated future business scenarios based on models that guarantee transparency
transparency, data privacy, ethical principles, and protection against discrimination. and data privacy, but just 44% con-
sider it likely that this will happen6
PERSPECTIVES ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
From a philosophical perspective, free- sophical as well as physical battles have of not only unlimited markets but also
dom is an exceptionally complex con- been fought to advance the freedom of unbounded individual freedom has
struct. An universal understanding hard- of the individual against threats of op- also emerged: Examples are behaviors
ly exists. The specific interpretations pression or censorship by more power- that damage the environment, the dark
and ideals have always been shaped by ful institutional actors like kings, states, sides of the Internet, or elites who visibly
cultural and historical factors. The dis- religions or – more recently – corpora- allow themselves abundant freedoms to
course on necessary defenses of – but tions, through the rule of law. Especially the detriment of other world regions
also limitations to – individual freedom in modern times, there has been a wide- and younger generations – culminating
and the needs of society as a whole, ly shared understanding that individual a few months ago in the clash of the
have spanned all of recorded history and freedom of speech and action is posi- boomer and younger generations on
given rise to many different schools of tively connoted. In recent years though, various social media platforms with the
thought. Over several millennia, philo- an awareness of the destructive aspects “OK boomer” meme (Romano, 2019).
FIGURE 1
The Leaders of Tomorrow take a clear position against a purely egocentric
interpretation of freedom and in favor of limits and responsibility towards society;
they don’t consider freedom a Western but a global value
What does freedom mean to you? | Top2box versus bottom2box
Completely disagree/ Completely agree/ Uncertainty
Tend to disagree Tend to agree (Neither/nor)
Freedom must always come with limitations. 17 % 74 % 9%
In principle, the welfare of the community/society must
30 % 48 % 21 %
take precedence over the freedom of the individual.
Freedom of choice is an illusion. Thoughts,
preferences and actions are determined by genetic 43 % 43 % 14 %
and social factors and other circumstances.
Freedom is largely a Western value. 59 % 27 % 14 %
Great freedom of choice (=decision making possibilities) 63 % 20 % 17 %
is more of a burden than a gift.
The ideal kind of freedom means being able to do
88 % 7% 4%
anything, without showing consideration for others.
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 20207
A purely selfish conception of freedom, of choice could paradoxically become a And cultural, philosophical, or religious
emblematic for the 80s and 90s of last burden when important decisions must background may influence the answers.
century (Andersen, 2012), seems to have be made day after day, always com- Civilizations from as far back as Ancient
served its time. Given the new opportu- bined with the doubt whether another Greece, with its famed philosophers,
nities but also new threats heralded by decision would have been better – at have struggled to define the concepts
technology, it may be high time to rebal- least this has been suggested by some of freedom and free will. Their ideas
ance freedom of the individual and the research (Schwartz, 2004). However, the ranged from being free from outside
individual’s responsibility and constraint Leaders of Tomorrow apparently do not coercion, to following nature, to follow-
required by living in a shared world. perceive it this way: Most respondents ing the will of a deity (Long & Sedley,
disagreed with the statement that free- 1987). Yuval Noah Harari argued in his
dom may be more of a burden than a article “The myth of freedom” in The
Need for limits gift. This means that freedom in terms Guardian (2018) that free will may be a
of free choice is not perceived as pres- myth, inherited from theology, to justify
When it comes to individual freedom sure but seems to be appreciated by the “why God is right to punish sinners for
in general, the Leaders of Tomorrow’s Leaders of Tomorrow. This applies to their bad choices and reward saints for
understanding is clearly characterized Western (West Europe and North Ameri- their good choices.”
by consideration for others. The agree- ca) respondents as well as to those from
ment to the different statements shows other regions (all other countries in the Neuroscience, too, has long challenged
a clear ranking with a purely egocentric sample) (68% disagreement by Western the conception of free will. In his famous
interpretation in the last place, and vs. 60% by non-Western respondents). experiments, Libet (1985) showed that
statements in favor of limits and re- unconscious brain activity preceded vol-
sponsibility for society in the leading On the question of whether “Freedom untary movements approximately half a
positions. is largely a Western value” – indicating second before the participants became
that the current concern and discus- aware of their intention to move. This
At the very top of the ranking, with an sion about freedom may be culturally suggests that decisions may be made at
exceptionally high degree of approval distorted – there is clear opposition. an unconscious level first, and our per-
and very low uncertainty, is the need Freedom, from the perspective of most ception that actions are taken by our
for limits. The Leaders of Tomorrow are Leaders of Tomorrow, seems to be con- free will comes about in retrospect. Be-
convinced that boundaries are insepa- sidered a global value, that is, an issue havioral scientists followed up on Libet’s
rably linked to freedom. Responsibility of worldwide relevance. More detailed findings and demonstrated that the be-
towards society comes next, with nearly analyses show that respondents from lief in free will has implications for social
half of the respondents agreeing that West Europe and North America show behavior. For instance, those who do not
the welfare of society should take pre- a less clear position in this respect than believe in truly free will tend to violate
cedence over freedom of the individu- other world regions (52% disagreement social rules more often (e.g., Vohs &
al. But there is also almost a third dis- by Western vs. 64% by non-Western Schooler, 2008), and, vice versa, are more
agreeing, and the level of uncertainty respondents). forgiving towards offenders (e.g., Shar-
is high here. More than 20% could not iff et al., 2014).
make up their minds whether to agree
or disagree with this statement. More Is freedom an illusion? In view of the rapid development of new
than 20% could not make up their minds intelligent technology and the debate
whether to agree or disagree with this The most philosophical statement about about its sometimes claimed superiority
statement. Given the trade-off inherent freedom – “freedom of choice is an illu- over human decisions, the question of
to this item, between society and indi- sion” – led to the biggest polarization what can boost or constrain human free
vidual, and the potential for abuse by between respondents. More than 40% will is going to take on a completely new
undemocratic forces, the high level of of the Leaders of Tomorrow agree with relevance.
uncertainty is understandable. the idea that freedom of choice is an illu-
sion and that one cannot escape the in-
Freedom is of course not only freedom fluences of the environment and genes.
from restrictions and chains, but also Just as high is the percentage of those
freedom to act and decide on your own who reject this statement and 14% are
responsibility. In many of today’s societ- undecided. The item of course addresses
ies with their abundant options, freedom a very difficult, sophisticated question.8
INHERITED CONSTRAINTS:
FREEDOM AS AN INTERGENERATIONAL PROBLEM
When talking about freedom and its lim- held on financial decision making and are accompanied by reflections about
its, one intergenerational issue stands overspending at the expense of young- the situation of the older generation
out: The climate crisis threatens the er people. The Leaders of Tomorrow are and the understanding that it is easy to
freedom of future generations. In face part of the younger generation. Do they judge in retrospect – admitting that the
of this crisis, young people around the blame the older generation? The answer younger generation can also be obliv-
globe have joined forces in an environ- is clear: Most of them do. More than 8 out ious to the future costs of present be-
mental movement of unprecedented of 10 say that the accusation “The elder havior. And sometimes they even grant
dimensions. Given how long the threat generation has granted themselves too the older generation some credit for cer-
of rising CO2 levels for the planet’s tem- much freedom at the expense of the tain achievements for today’s standard
perature has been known, their concerns younger generation” is justified – at of living. However, many participants –
about their future need to be put into least in a few aspects. Just 12% consider even those who considered the accusa-
context with earlier destructive behav- it unjustified. In open statements that tion true in just a few aspects – blame
ior of prior generations. Similar discus- participants could add to explain their them heavily in the open explanations
sions, on a smaller scale, have also been answers, sometimes the accusations of their accusations. The main reasons
FIGURE 2
The vast majority of the Leaders of Tomorrow blame the elder generation for having
granted itself too much freedom at the expense of the younger generation
Sometimes the older generation is accused of having granted itself too much freedom at the expense of the younger generation.
What do you think of this accusation?
No answer Absolutely justified
Main reasons for the accusation according to open-ended answers
4% 6%
12 %
Absolutely unjustified Justified in > environmental exploitation, degradation, pollution: 28 %
many aspects
24 %
> prioritization of economic growth and their own wealth
(wealth inequality, capitalistic world, debt burden,
unfair pension and healthcare system): 14 %
> general short term thinking, lack of thinking about the
future generation / consequences: 12 %
Justified in few aspects 54 %
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 20209
for these accusations are environmental time for the older and younger genera-
exploitation, degradation and pollution, tions to agree on a new social contract
prioritization of economic growth and on sustainability, fairness, and the limits
their own wealth, general short-term of freedom.
thinking or a lack of consideration for
the future generations and the conse-
quences of their actions. It seems to be
B OX 1
The Leaders of Tomorrow accuse the elder generation of having granted itself
too much freedom – some exemplary quotes
“Older generations have knowingly passed on the bill “Economic exploitation of resources and uncontrolled
for many of the most profound societal issues, including consumption has degraded the planet to a point beyond
climate change, demographic shifts, and inequality, and full repair and built an unsustainable concept of internati-
have instead reaped the short-term gains from their under- onal development. Their freedom to produce and consume,
investment or downright destructive policies. They‘ve set has resulted in the younger generation‘s most pressing
the forest ablaze, dancing around the campfire, in the and unsolvable challenge in the history of the human race.”
knowledge that they wouldn‘t have to deal with the (Employee, USA)
consequences.” (Employee, USA)
“They granted themselves too much debt at the expense
„Older generations cared more about keeping their status of the younger generation. If freedom is a euphemism for
rather than building a better future for everyone. We also, debt, then sure.” (Entrepreneur, Singapore)
as a newer generation do the same thing, but for other
reasons, mainly the hyper-connected world and meaning- “ […]. There has been a certain degree of nearsightedness
less interactions that we have today.“ (Entrepreneur, Chile) in the way older generations have carried out rampant
environmental damage, however, a blame game is not the
“Depletion of natural resources due to which there is scarcity solution for anything. We can learn from our past mistakes
for the younger generation. Pollution, forest fires, melting and live more responsibly and act more consciously as a
of ice, holes in ozone layer are all standing witnesses of the global community.” (Student, Japan)
freedom older generation exercised.” (Student, India)10
FREEDOM IN THE DIGITAL SPHERE: TRADE-OFFS
BETWEEN RESTRICTIONS AND PRESERVATION
Free speech on the Internet The list of benefits is long: circum- and thus to become a potential “mass
vention of state censorship, citizen medium”, which was previously reserved
While individual freedom has always journalism, access to information and for “official” media organizations. But it
been a heavily debated topic, the rapid education for all, whistleblowing, avail- is a double-edged sword: It also enables
emergence of digital technologies has ability of scientific data and general destructive forces, malevolent entities
raised a number of new issues. The open-source content are important ex- or individuals to post extremist propa-
tension between freedom and digital amples. Furthermore, the Internet has ganda, child pornography, live streaming
technologies has many faces. Nobody created worldwide networks, commu- of attacks and massacres, bullying, lies
would deny that the Internet enables nities and collaborations independent and hatred – shielded by the comfort-
communication across the globe with- from direct personal exchange. This also able anonymity of the Internet. While
out boundaries of time and distance means that everyone has the opportu- criminal actions can be prosecuted by
and thus extends individual freedom. nity to be read by many other people law, the general regulation of freedom
FIGURE 3
The Leaders of Tomorrow take a very clear position against unlimited
freedom of speech on the Internet
Personal freedom in the context of digital technologies. Please tick whether you < agree or disagree > with the following statements.
Prespecified statements on freedom of speech on the Internet
No boundaries Boundaries
20 % 17 % 73 % 75 %
8%
14 %
9% 8%
66 % 75 % 17 % 17 %
People in public life should put up Freedom of speech on the Internet The freedom to speak freely The freedom to express oneself
with being insulted on must not be restricted under about anything on the Internet freely on the Internet should
the Internet and not complain. any circumstances, even if should be restricted if it is used be restricted if others are
deliberately wrong or even abusive to spread lies (fake news). severely insulted or verbally abused
content is posted. (hate speech).
Completely agree/Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Completely disagree/Tend to disagree
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 202011
of speech on the Internet is a controver- Communication skills “Humanity should be taught as a
sial issue. Where should the boundaries course; people should understand
of freedom of speech on the Internet be Pasthtana from the St. Gallen Knowledge humanity is all about expressing
drawn? The Leaders of Tomorrow’s gen- Pool has a particularly comprehensive per- yourself without hurting those
eral advocacy of limits translates into spective on the problem of hate speech. around you. Humanity should be
concrete recommendations here: They She sees it as a question of humanity practiced and preached in younger
take a clear position against unlimited that should be taught from childhood classes.” (Pashtana, Activist, Afghanistan)
freedom of speech on the Internet and (see quotation). However, this is probably
clearly recommend restrictions against not only a question of good will but also
hate speech and fake news. Paradox- of new skills. The Internet has taken free-
ically, to preserve the freedom of the dom of expression to a new global level
digital sphere, freedom may need to be and this requires new communication
restricted. skills and the awareness of the effect of
words on others. Currently it seems that
Women view the limiting of hate speech the opposite is true. The sensitivity for
as particularly favorable. They agree the right tone appears to be lower than in
more strongly than men with the state- face-to-face contacts and there is a dan-
ment that the freedom of the Internet ger of a brutalization of communication.
should be restricted to prevent it (81% Here is a comment from a participant of
agreement by women vs. 72% by men), the survey: “I think it is clear that the
while there is no striking difference to freedom to threaten and target people
men regarding the statement about without any repercussions is a danger-
fake news (75% agreement by women ous situation and creates a false sense of
vs. 73% by men). One reason for the gen- ‘Internet cowboyism’ where people can
der difference may be that hate speech truly post outrageous things which in no
is not only more prevalent against wom- way would be permitted in normal public
en, it also frequently takes the form of dialogue. Freedom only goes so far as in
sexual harassment, as summarized in a that it does not infringe on the freedom
recent report published by the Europe- of others, and that is clearly on collision
an Parliament (Wilk, 2018). Saif from course here.”
the St. Gallen Knowledge Pool is keen to
make the public aware of this aspect of “[…] I‘d like to draw attention to the negative side of free expression on Internet,
hate speech (see quotation). especially against women on social media; obviously in developing countries like
Bangladesh and from South East Asia. To be very frank, there is no such definite
solution rather than building awareness on how negative comments by men
toward women will eventually haunt back to their own family and friends, which
they don‘t see according to their short-term vision.” (Saif, Entrepreneur, Bangladesh)12
A variety of measures against malev- social media: 63% consider such a ban –
olent behavior on the Internet are cur- as recently announced by Twitter (Kelly,
rently discussed in the media, and all 2019) – at least acceptable. Only the
raise considerable controversy. Which of option of revoking the possibility of on-
them would the Leaders of Tomorrow be line anonymity receives less acceptance.
willing to accept in order to prevent the In some regions of the world, revealing
abuse of freedom on the Internet? They identities would have serious and dan-
see social media companies in particular gerous consequences, be it due to cen-
as responsible for curtailing malevolent sorship of free speech, persecution of
behavior. Almost 90% say that it is at sexual orientation or gender identity, or
least acceptable to have social media believing in the “wrong” – or perhaps
companies censor abusive and fake con- no – deity. When online anonymity is
tent, and more than 80% would even threatened by new legislation, Internet
make them accountable for it. So the activists regularly jump to its defense –
majority thinks that platforms that un- so passionately that such conflicts have
til now have often taken a “hands off” been labeled “Nymwars” (e.g., York,
approach, rejecting content filtering by 2011). Nevertheless, 60% of the Lead-
claiming they are “just the messenger”, ers of Tomorrow consider abandoning
should instead be obliged to prevent and online anonymity to increase individual
to censor hate speech and fake news on accountability at least acceptable.
the Internet. While such demands are
not new, they come from an unusual Members of the St. Gallen Knowledge
corner: Digital Natives. Compared to Pool who were asked a short series of
their clear position on the responsibility open-ended questions also contributed
of social media companies, the Leaders their thoughts. Some of their ideas for
of Tomorrow are more reserved about measures against hate speech and fake
a general ban of political advertising in news are shown on the next page.
FIGURE 4
The Leaders of Tomorrow think that social media
companies should be obliged to prevent and censor
abusive content on the Internet
Several measures on fighting hate speech and fake news online are currently debated.
Please tell us your attitude towards the following measures.
Prespecified statements to fight hate speech and fake news on the Internet
47 % 40 % 21 % 21 %
42 % 40 %
44 %
40 %
13 % 16 % 37 % 40 %
Have social media Make social media Ban political Abandon the possibility
companies censor companies accountable advertisments to publish content
abusive and for the content from social media. anonymously
fake content. published on (to increase individual
their platform. accountability).
Necessary Acceptable Unacceptable
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 202013
How can we save the benefits of free expression on the Internet
while limiting the damage by malevolent players?
“To save the benefits of free expression on the Internet in “Technology companies should improve their community
our time of technological advancement, we would need policies and implement more efficient mechanisms to curb
to leverage on artificial intelligence to easily identify fake fake news and hate content from their platforms. These
news and hate speech before it is used to cause damage.” companies should work uninfluenced by local governments
(Elijah, Chef / Social Entrepreneur, Ghana) but in sync with human rights organizations.”
(Chirag, Travel Tech Entrepreneur, India)
“Short-term regulatory policies will not shift the culture “The question is one of enforcement of and respect
around Internet usage and its ethics. This must emerge as a for existing laws. […] Regulation must on the one hand
longer-term project implemented by public and private ins- build on technology such as Facebook where most of these
titutions through the education system to teach people the infringements take place but also foster human responsi-
benefits of free expression when employed ethically and the bility and not lay off such a crucial government task (law
consequences, they derive from abusing it.” (Jesse, Researcher, enforcement) to private companies.”
Analyst, Author on Foreign Policy in the Middle East, China) (Benedikt, FinTech Entrepreneur Switzerland)
“[…] Social media platform themselves should aggressively
promote strategic digital contents that build awareness
to fight the mindset that is shrinking the benefits of free
expression. The idea here is to create the „safe spaces“ in
a more organic way rather than any imposed ban which
threatens free speech.” (Saif, Entrepreneur, Bangladesh)14
Privacy and control should get paid in exchange for their
data. These opinions are very much in
Data has been named the new oil of the line with what musician and entrepre-
digitalized world (The Economist, 2017). neur will.i.am wrote in 2019 for The
In the course of digitalization, more and Economist Open Future initiative on the
more data is being produced and young role of markets, technology and free-
people are sometimes accused of being dom in the 21st century: “Personal data
too generous or even careless with their needs to be regarded as a human right,
personal data. Questions such as wheth- just as access to water is a human right.
er the collection of this data should be The ability for people to own and control
allowed or forbidden by default, or to their data should be considered a central
what extent users should be remuner- human value. The data itself should be
ated for it, have been topics of heated treated like property and people should
discussions. Data breach scandals have be fairly compensated for it.”
further fueled the debates. It seems
that these discussions have left their On the other hand, many of the respon-
mark: More than half of the respondents dents are likely to become future busi-
fully agree that data collection by plat- ness leaders who may want to profit
form providers should be prohibited by from Big Data and personalized services
default and only be allowed with explicit themselves. How does that fit in with
consent; another 32% at least tend to this position? A closer look at the sub-
agree. And two thirds of the respon- group of entrepreneurs among the re-
dents even support the idea that users spondents shows that there are indeed
FIGURE 5
The Leaders of Tomorrow want personal data to be controlled by its owners and
remunerated when it is used by online platforms
What do you think about the collection of personal data on the Internet?
That providers and platforms on the Internet collect data from users of their sites …
… should be allowed by default … should be prohibited by default
and only be prohibited after 4 10 % 32 % 54 % and only permitted with
explicit refusal by users. the explicit consent of users.
14 % 86 %
I think it is justified …
… that platforms are allowed
… that users should be paid for
to collect personal data for free
6% 27 % 40 % 27 % the collection, usage and monetizing
in exchange for users accessing
of their data by platforms.
and using the platform.
33 % 67 %
Completely agree with the left … Tend to agree with the left statement Tend to agree with the right statement Completely agree with the right …
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 202015
differences between them and the rest FIGURE 6
of the respondents: They express sig- The Leaders of Tomorrow expect protection of
nificantly higher levels of agreement personal data as a shared responsibility,
with the interests of the companies and
with state institutions in the lead
platforms. Nevertheless, the general
tendency observed for the entire sample Who should be responsible for ensuring that personal information (data) from social networks
is also reflected in their answers. Thus, users is not being used to their detriment? | Average distribution of 100 Points to the following
parties, depending on the extent of their responsibility
reservations against permissive han-
dling of personal data seem to be the 41 points
prevailing attitude among the Leaders 35 points
of Tomorrow.
24 points
But whose responsibility is it to ensure
that personal data is not used to harm
users of social networks? The respon-
dents were asked to distribute points to
express the extent to which they viewed
State institutions The respective technology The users themselves
different players as being in charge. 36 %
(governments, legislators) providers (companies) through (individual responsibility)
Most responsibility is assigned to state through regulation self-regulation (even if it
goes agsinst their own
institutions (41 points on average), business interests)
closely followed by the platform provid-
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
ers (35 points), and the users themselves © Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 2020
follow at some distance with 24 points
on average. This looks like a vote for
more regulation by governments and
legislators; the Leaders of Tomorrow ex-
pect state institutions to take the lead
in protecting data privacy and security.
It should be noted, however, that most TA B L E 1
respondents distributed their points
across the different players, indicating Almost no one assigns full responsibility for
shared responsibility – everyone needs data protection in social media to just one player
to do their part to protect personal data
from abuse. Please distribute 100 points among the three parties according to their responsibility that
personal information (data) from social networks users is not being used to their detriment.
To put it in concrete figures: Nearly no- State institutions The technology providers The users
body awarded 91 to 100 points – which
would have been the equivalent to Average score 41 points 35 points 24 points
(sum = 100)
(almost) sole responsibility – to just one
of the parties (see table 1). 0 points, Distribution of the points
which means no responsibility, were
also rarely assigned. However, more 0 points 2% 6% 13 %
than half of the respondents awarded
1 to 20 points 17 % 22 % 55 %
a maximum of 20 points to the users,
while state institutions and technolo- 21 - 50 points 54 % 64 % 38 %
gy providers mostly received between
21 and 50 points. State institutions in 51 - 70 points 21 % 11 % 5%
particular frequently received more than
51 points. 71 - 90 points 6% 3% 2%
91 to 100 points 2% 0% 0%
Basis: all respondents (n=898)16
FIGURE 7
The Leaders of Tomorrow take a critical and differentiated stance towards
companies’ usage of personal data by means of new technologies
To what extent do you think these measures are reasonable or acceptable? | Prespecified statements
Selective/individual pricing, i.e. customers receive different prices
4 19 % 35 % 42 %
for the same products depending on their profile created by data.
Using sophisticated presettings without explicitly communicating
this to steer customers in the direction desired by the company. 4 20 % 40 % 36 %
(‚Nudging‘/‚Choice Architecture‘)
Using biometric data (for example about fitness, nutrition, sleep)
10 % 33 % 26 % 31 %
to offer personalized health insurance rates.
Using individual location data to send advertisements optimized
11 % 43 % 27 % 19 %
in time and space (location tracking).
Using biometric data (for example about fitness, nutrition, sleep)
11 % 47 % 24 % 18 %
to offer personalized product suggestions.
Reasonable Acceptable Rather unfair Not tolerable
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 2020
Whatever the Leaders of Tomorrow Just a quarter consider them as accept- these reserved assessments are surpris-
may think about the collection and pro- able or reasonable – with the latter at ing and important to know. It can be
tection of personal data, technological merely 4%. Perhaps these measures observed that the answers of today’s
literacy is a necessity for companies in were rated so poorly because there is no entrepreneurs among the Leaders of
order to survive in a rapidly developing realistic chance to control them from the Tomorrow are less reluctant than those
business environment. customers’ end. Using biometric data of the students and employees. Never-
to offer personalized insurance rates – theless, the Don’ts outweigh the Do’s for
When it comes to different smart digi- which allows a certain level of control them as well.
tal applications that companies may – because it presupposes that the users
in the future or already today – use in release their data – is also rejected as
relation to their customers, the Leaders unfair or not tolerable, but only by a
of Tomorrow again take a skeptical view modest majority of nearly 60%.
about what is reasonable and what is
not acceptable. But their assessments The majority flips when personal data
are also differentiated. is used for different purposes: 54% find
the use of individual location data to
“Selective pricing” (i.e., customers re- optimize advertisements reasonable
ceive different prices for the same prod- or at least acceptable, and 58% would
ucts depending on their profile created accept that biometric data is used for
by data) and “Choice Architecture” (i.e., personalized product suggestions. But
the strategic use of sophisticated de- these are narrow majorities. Even for
fault settings – without explicitly com- these measures the share of votes
municating this – to steer customers against is quite high.
or users in the direction desired by the
company) were rated particularly poorly. In view of the fact that these are not
Three quarters assessed these measures only Digital Natives but many will also
as rather unfair or even not tolerable. likely run their own companies one day,17
TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN AGENCY:
DECISIONS BETWEEN CONVENIENCE AND CONTROL
Smartphone ubiquity time and space. In this way freedom of bigger problems in terms of restrictions
communication is promoted – nobody imposed by mobile phone usage. The
A very tangible example of modern would deny this. But on the other hand, Leaders of Tomorrow are aware of them
technology can also reveal insights into smartphones potentially also constrain and obviously find it difficult to maintain
the tension between technology and freedom. To be reachable at any time (self-)control in terms of resisting the
freedom: The smartphone is, without could also be perceived as a restriction permanent attraction (and distraction)
any doubt, the most important techno- of freedom. The Leaders of Tomorrow of the technical devices. Finally, when it
logical device of the young generation, are remarkably split on this issue: More comes to judging how dependent they
and it affects freedom in different ways. than 44% see being always reachable are on the technical devices, half of the
On the one hand it naturally extends as a restriction of their freedom, while respondents admit feeling lost without
individual freedom and convenience 37% disagree. For the statements on their smartphone and nearly 60% would
because it enables people to commu- “time-consumption” and “concentra- consider it a deprivation of their free-
nicate whenever they want and with tion-killing”, however, there is much dom if someone took their smartphone
whomever they want, independent of more consent: These seem to represent away.
FIGURE 8
The Leaders of Tomorrow are aware of the constraints and dependencies important
technologies like smart and mobile phones impose on them
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | Prespecified statements
Constraints
My smartphone negatively impacts my ability to concentrate
19 % 46 % 12 % 17 % 6%
and focus on a single task.
My smartphone/mobile phone demands too much of my time. 21 % 41 % 14 % 18 % 6%
It is a restriction of my freedom to be reachable at any time. 11 % 33 % 18 % 27 % 10 %
Dependence
I'd consider it a deprivation of my freedom if someone took
27 % 41 % 13 % 11 % 7%
away my smartphone/mobile phone.
Without my smartphone/mobile phone, I feel really lost. 11 % 38 % 15 % 24 % 12 %
Completely agree Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Tend to disagree Completely disagree
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 202018
It is interesting that the detrimental AI, algorithms and
effect on smartphone use on concen- human choice
tration is seen as such a problem by so
many Leaders of Tomorrow. This may be Sophisticated algorithms and artificial
best described as an addiction that peo- intelligence are some of the most im-
ple are aware of, but still cannot seem to portant and promising technological
overcome or control to the extent they developments of our time, especially in
wish. Indeed, some authors argue that a business context. Algorithms can im-
our always-on lifestyle together with prove the targeting of communication
the infinite access of information have and offerings of companies and plat-
led to “information obesity” (Brabazon, forms, often even to the point of indi-
2013; Carmody, 2010). vidualization. AI is a branch of computer
science that deals with the simulation of
The online magazine Minds & Machines intelligent behavior in computers or the
recently even wrote an article about sov- ability of a machine to imitate intelligent
ereignty in the digital age: “[…] for many human behavior. In other words, it can
of us, even temporarily disconnecting not only support human work and deci-
from technology requires herculean sion-making processes but could even-
effort. And yet an increasing number tually replace them altogether. Thus, AI
of people are undertaking that effort, is the first field that threatens to com-
precisely because the ceaseless torrent pete with humanity in a domain long
of information feels so oppressive and considered unreachable for machines:
paralyzing. Digital technology seems to making intelligent decisions.
have resuscitated the age-old debate
about positive and negative freedom: Most people are already used to social
the freedom to access the world’s infor- networks applying algorithms to filter
mation and communicate with anyone content for users, online shops track or-
has given way to demands for a freedom der history and user behavior to make
from dependency on our devices” (Psy- product suggestions, and search en-
chology of Technology Institute, 2019). gines tailor results to stored individual
profiles. The basis for that is data, very
The Philosopher and former Google de- often on a level of detail and in amounts
signer James Williams (2018) goes even that many people are not aware of,
further. He has called for “freedom of which is analyzed and used for predic-
attention” to things that really matter tions by algorithms that most people do
without being thwarted by technology. not understand.
This perception of technological devices
as a disruptive factor in life is likely to Many algorithms are aimed at influenc-
present providers with new challeng- ing online search and shopping decisions
es but also with new opportunities. An (which ultimately also impacts offline
initial response to this challenge is now behavior). They do not exert control
provided by one of the mobile operating through authoritarian power, do not im-
systems with a downtime feature allow- pose prohibitions or laws, but they sub-
ing users to set time limits on the use of tly create different realities (bubbles)
certain applications. and thus influence human decisions.19
FIGURE 9
Most Leaders of Tomorrow consider algorithms that filter online content as constraining
and patronizing, while the evaluation of convenience aspects is polarized
Various aspects of personal freedom in the context of digital technologies and their possibilities.
Prespecified statements on algorithms that filter the content we see
Convenience, decision aid Restrictions, paternalism
Algorithms that filter the content we see online … Algorithms that filter the content we see online …
41 % 40 % 67 % 63 %
23 % 24 %
14 % 16 %
36 % 36 % 19 % 21 %
… are useful in helping … relieve us from stress by … restrict our freedom … restrict our
us make decisions carrying out helpful preselections of information freedom of choice
Completely agree/Tend to agree Neither agree or disagree Completely disagree/Tend to disagree
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 2020
How do the Leaders of Tomorrow see lection or do not consider them to be
the issue of freedom in the context of really helpful. Or maybe they simply
this new technology? Do they consider do not want to have a shortlist created
algorithms that filter the content they for them but prefer to decide for them-
see on the Internet more as a tool of selves from a bigger, unbiased spec-
convenience, more as a patronizing in- trum of options. Another quarter of the
strument, or both? First and foremost, respondents are not sure whether they
they see restrictions in their freedom consider the algorithms to be beneficial
of information and freedom of choice or not.
in algorithms that filter content, a kind
of “algorithmic paternalism”. Two thirds
of them agree to corresponding state-
ments, just 20% disagree. In contrast,
convenience aspects such as decision
support by preselection and custom-
ized suggestions polarize clearly: Half
of the respondents seem to distrust the
quality of the algorithm-based prese-20
FIGURE 10
Most Leaders of Tomorrow would involve AI to a large degree in various business
tasks, rising from a lower level in HR tasks to a higher level for product development
and even more so for automated pricing
Artificial Intelligence (AI) means that companies are now able to automate various tasks. To what extent should companies automate?
Prespecified statements
Granting discounts/setting
Selecting job candidates Developing new products surcharges for customers
Human decides
(without input from AI)
7% 3 4 11 %
Human decides among options 14 % 20 %
24 %
developed by AI
AI decides among options
developed by humans
53 %
AI involved
47 % 76 %
AI involved
89 %
AI involved 36 %
AI decides
(without input from humans) 44 %
34 %
58 %
n = 898; “Leaders of Tomorrow – Wave 2020”
© Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions & St. Gallen Symposium: Voices of the Leaders of Tomorrow 2020
In an article for Forbes, Bernard Marr However, more than 40% think that AI human-developed options (34%), or
(2017) introduced his topic by stating: can preselect options. The power of in- that humans should select among
“When it comes to the possibilities and fluence by creating options seems to be AI-developed options (36%). Thus, 9
possible perils of artificial intelligence perceived as smaller than by making the out of 10 respondents would rely on
(AI), learning and reasoning by machines final decision. But as the development of the AI for this task. Maybe the high level
without the intervention of humans, options creates a shortlist and narrows of overall agreement that AI should be
there are lots of opinions out there. Only the scope of possibilities, the perceived involved in decision making in this case
time will tell which one [….] will be the level of control exerted by making the can be explained by the fact that AI is
closest to our future reality.” final decision may be overestimated or already widely – and successfully – ap-
– to put it bluntly – be only an illusion plied in a similar task, namely for pro-
In the present study, the Leaders of of control. When it comes to the task of grammatic buying in online advertising.
Tomorrow were asked to recommend developing products, far more Leaders Thus, it does not need much imagination
which of various tasks should be delegat- of Tomorrow suggest that AI should be to conceive of applying AI solutions to
ed fully or partially to AI by companies. granted influence. Just a quarter of the automatic pricing. The interesting ques-
The following response options were respondents would do this creative task tions for the future will be to see which
available: 1) Humans decide without in- without the support of artificial intelli- decision tasks are best left to humans,
put of AI, 2) AI develops a number of op- gence, while nearly 60% would use it for which to AI, and in which ways the two
tions and humans decide between these the development of options. So, creating can best cooperate.
options, 3) humans develop a number the shortlist is the preferred type of AI
of options and AI decides among them, assistance again.
or 4) AI decides without input from
humans. The variation of the answers is The greatest extent of AI involvement
very high. The AI is granted least author- is recommended for a third task, grant-
ity in matters of personnel and human ing discounts or setting surcharges for
resources. Especially the hiring decision customers. Every fifth participant even
itself should be made by only a person thinks that these decisions should be
– at least according to about half of the left entirely to AI. And similar percent-
Leaders of Tomorrow. ages think that AI should select amongYou can also read
