Computer- and information technologies are decisive forces of production. In industrialised countries they permeate all spheres of society. Digitalisation is on everyone's lips. However, it is mostly unclear what exactly it is supposed to mean, especially in the political discourse in the West.

 

Caution is warranted when policy makers use digitalisation merely as a buzzword.

 

On the one hand, it is very often the case that decision makers are simply unaware of the potentials and dangers of digitalisation, partially because they themselves are digitally naive. In many Western countries the emptiness of the digitalisation phrases was revealed by the data chaos and logistical failure of state agencies in the pandemic. To this very day, for example, there is, embarrassingly, no consistent system of centrally registering and processing Covid-19 cases in Austria. This has naturally contributed to the confusion of the public.

 

On the other hand, there are politicians and industrialists who are well aware of the possibilities of digitalisation concerning increased surveillance and exploitation at the workplace and beyond.

 

It is a historical fact that under capitalist conditions, progress in automation and advances in control systems in production have had negative effects on the labour force – contrary to their overall potential. The current wave of digitalisation in the West driven by Artificial Intelligence and Big Data is at risk of leading not to less but to more work, not to higher but lower qualification, not to less but more unemployment. In addition, the opportunities for self-determination and participation at the workplace, which are already quite restricted for most people, will be further diminished by rigorous digital monitoring and enforced digital control.489

 

Outside the sphere of production, computer and information technology is also used for surveillance and conditioning. Vast amounts of data collected about people are traded like commodities for tailor-made advertising and political manipulation.490 At the same time, digital media outlets in particular are key instruments of propaganda, misinformation and diversion tactics. So-called "social" platforms actually contribute to isolation and loneliness. By and large, they create a world of make-believe in which every insignificance becomes news, every banality becomes a hype, every opinion becomes an expertise, every fool becomes an influencer, every trifle becomes fashion, and ignorance and obsequiousness become the ideal.

 

The problem here is not technology, nor were steam or electrically driven machines or the rationalisation of production processes the cause of deteriorating working conditions, greater unemployment and more exploitation. Throughout the history of capitalism, innovations have led to Luddism and a general rejection of scientific and technological achievements. It is often not immediately obvious that it is not the technical achievements themselves that are the problem, but who has access to them, who can use them for what, and who can misuse them.

 

Therefore, the problem is ownership and societal control. As Albert Einstein put it in his famous essay ‘Why socialism?’: “The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. … Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. … means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit.“ 491

 

In high-tech industry, this contradiction between the interests of society and private corporations is even more pronounced than in other areas. Basic production such as the manufacture of computer chips, critical infrastructure such as server and cloud farms, platforms such as search engines, internet commerce and social media are in the hands of a few monopolies, in the West essentially privately owned by a few families. (Add to this the fact that high-tech corporations benefit to a considerable extent from public funding, whether directly through tax breaks or government subsidies, or indirectly through research at taxpayer-funded public institutions. This can also be observed in the biotechnical field, currently in the development of vaccines.)

 

Overall, this is also a qualitatively new situation in history: the fact that the technology of this economic and social power is so highly concentrated and centralised in private hands, and therefore removed from the control of society as a whole. In the leading Western countries, there are many examples where this power is used against society in spreading misinformation and deconstructing the scientific consensus.492 The misinformation campaign surrounding global warming is a case in point.

 

Computer and information technology have enormous revolutionary potential. Enabling the modelling and simulation of complex processes in nature and society leads to progress in knowledge, rational control of economic processes and social plannability493 Science and technology are in principle capable of alleviating the pressing problems of humanity and solve them in the foreseeable future, provided that the means of the production are distributed fairly across the globe, dedicated to the welfare of society and withdrawn from solely private interests.

 

Under not purely capitalist conditions, where the private interests of the owners and their profit orientation do not dominate society, the possibilities of digitalisation could be used much more extensively. For example, sustainable technologies could be developed and applied more quickly, energy and resources would not be wasted, and the distribution of important goods such as food or vaccinations, for that matter, could be regulated according to the common good.

 

In some respects, China has had a better approach than most Western countries in this regard. It internationally contributes to human rights through the elimination of poverty, the expansion of access to education and the sharing of technology based on and driven by a digitalisation effort of society, by society, for society.

 

The revolutionary potential of computer and information technologies also manifests itself in two further aspects: on the one hand, in the preservation, processing, provision, dissemination and consolidation of the knowledge of all humankind. On the other hand, building on this, the revolutionary potential also lies in the networking and organisation of people for shared goals of sustainable development in society and nature based on science and oriented towards human rights and the common good.

 

Austria is small country, but it is on the forefront of Digital Humanism. The international Vienna Manifesto on Digital Humanism is a position statement signed by a great number scientist and organisation worldwide that lays out the motivation and goals for the Digital Humanism Initiative.

 

“The system is failing” – stated by the founder of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee – emphasizes that while digitalization opens unprecedented opportunities, it also raises serious concerns: the monopolization of the Web, the rise of extremist opinions and behavior orchestrated by social media, the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers as islands of disjoint truths, the loss of privacy, and the spread of digital surveillance. Digital technologies are disrupting societies and questioning our understanding of what it means to be human. The stakes are high and the challenge of building a just and democratic society with humans at the center of technological progress needs to be addressed with determination as well as scientific ingenuity. Technological innovation demands social innovation, and social innovation requires broad societal engagement.

 

This manifesto is a call to deliberate and to act on current and future technological development. We encourage our academic communities, as well as industrial leaders, politicians, policy makers, and professional societies all around the globe, to actively participate in policy formation. Our demands are the result of an emerging process that unites scientists and practitioners across fields and topics, brought together by concerns and hopes for the future. We are aware of our joint responsibility for the current situation and the future – both as professionals and citizens.

 

Today, we experience the co-evolution of technology and humankind. The flood of data, algorithms, and computational power is disrupting the very fabric of society by changing human interactions, societal institutions, economies, and political structures. Science and the humanities are not exempt. This disruption simultaneously creates and threatens jobs, produces and destroys wealth, and improves and damages our ecology. It shifts power structures, thereby blurring the human and the machine.

 

The quest is for enlightenment and humanism. The capability to automate human cognitive activities is a revolutionary aspect of computer science / informatics. For many tasks, machines surpass already what humans can accomplish in speed, precision, and even analytic deduction. The time is right to bring together humanistic ideals with critical thoughts about technological progress. We therefore link this manifesto to the intellectual tradition of humanism and similar movements striving for an enlightened humanity.

 

Like all technologies, digital technologies do not emerge from nowhere. They are shaped by implicit and explicit choices and thus incorporate a set of values, norms, economic interests, and assumptions about how the world around us is or should be. Many of these choices remain hidden in software programs implementing algorithms that remain invisible. In line with the renowned Vienna Circle and its contributions to modern thinking, we want to espouse critical rational reasoning and the interdisciplinarity needed to shape the future.

 

We must shape technologies in accordance with human values and needs, instead of allowing technologies to shape humans. Our task is not only to rein in the downsides of information and communication technologies, but to encourage human-centered innovation. We call for a Digital Humanism that describes, analyzes, and, most importantly, influences the complex interplay of technology and humankind, for a better society and life, fully respecting universal human rights.

 

In conclusion, we proclaim the following core principles:

 

Digital technologies should be designed to promote democracy and inclusion. This will require special efforts to overcome current inequalities and to use the emancipatory potential of digital technologies to make our societies more inclusive.

 

Privacy and freedom of speech are essential values for democracy and should be at the center of our activities. Therefore, artifacts such as social media or online platforms need to be altered to better safeguard the free expression of opinion, the dissemination of information, and the protection of privacy.

 

Effective regulations, rules and laws, based on a broad public discourse, must be established. They should ensure prediction accuracy, fairness and equality, accountability, and transparency of software programs and algorithms.

 

Regulators need to intervene with tech monopolies. It is necessary to restore market competitiveness as tech monopolies concentrate market power and stifle innovation. Governments should not leave all decisions to markets.

 

Decisions with consequences that have the potential to affect individual or collective human rights must continue to be made by humans. Decision makers must be responsible and accountable for their decisions. Automated decision making systems should only support human decision making, not replace it.

 

Scientific approaches crossing different disciplines are a prerequisite for tackling the challenges ahead. Technological disciplines such as computer science / informatics must collaborate with social sciences, humanities, and other sciences, breaking disciplinary silos.

 

Universities are the place where new knowledge is produced and critical thought is cultivated. Hence, they have a special responsibility and have to be aware of that.

 

Academic and industrial researchers must engage openly with wider society and reflect upon their approaches. This needs to be embedded in the practice of producing new knowledge and technologies, while at the same time defending the freedom of thought and science.

 

Practitioners everywhere ought to acknowledge their shared responsibility for the impact of information technologies. They need to understand that no technology is neutral and be sensitized to see both potential benefits and possible downsides.

 

A vision is needed for new educational curricula, combining knowledge from the humanities, the social sciences, and engineering studies. In the age of automated decision making and AI, creativity and attention to human aspects are crucial to the education of future engineers and technologists.

 

Education on computer science / informatics and its societal impact must start as early as possible. Students should learn to combine information-technology skills with awareness of the ethical and societal issues at stake.

 

We are at a crossroads to the future; we must go into action and take the right direction!

 

Digital Humanism is a path towards humane digitalisation. It provides an opportunity to humanise digitalisation and to use digitalisation for the benefit of humanity. Even more so than the printing press has been historically, humane digitalisation could be at the centre of a new digital enlightenment.

 

 

489 Schaupp, Simon. 2021. Technopolitik von unten. Algorithmische Arbeitssteuerung und kybernetische Proletarisierung. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.

 

490 Sadowski, Jason. 2020. Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism is Extracting Data, Controlling Our Lives, and Taking Over the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

491 Einstein, Albert (May 2009) [May 1949]. Why Socialism? Monthly Review 61.1: 55–61. doi:10.14452/MR-061-01-2009-05_7.

 

492 Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury.

 

493 Digital Socialism? The Calculation Debate in the Age of Big Data. New Left Review 116/7: 33–67.