What everyday citizens can do to claim power on the internet Fadi Chehad and Bryn Freedman

Bryn Freedman: So you said
that in the 20th century,

global power was in the hands
of government.

At the beginning of this digital century,

it really moved to corporations

and that in the future,
it would move to individuals.

And I’ve interviewed a lot of people,

and they say you’re wrong,

and they are betting on the companies.

So why are you right,

and why are individuals going to win out?

Fadi Chehadé: Because companies
cater to individuals,

and we as the citizenry

need to start understanding
that we have a big role

in shaping how the world
will be governed, moving forward.

Yes, indeed, the tug of war right now
is between governments,

who lost much of their power to companies

because the internet is not built
around the nation-state system

around which governments have power.

The internet is transnational.

It’s not international,
and it’s not national,

and therefore the companies
became very powerful.

They shape our economy.

They shape our society.

Governments don’t know what to do.

Right now, they’re reacting.

And I fear that if we do not,
as the citizenry –

which are, in my opinion,
the most important leg of that stool –

don’t take our role,

then you are right.

The detractors, or the people telling you
that businesses will prevail, are right.

It will happen.

BF: So are you saying that individuals
will force businesses

or business will be forced
to be responsive,

or is there a fear that they won’t be?

FC: I think they will be.

Look at two weeks ago,

a small company called Skip
winning over Uber and Lyft and everyone

to actually get the license
for the San Francisco scooter business.

And if you read why did Skip win,

because Skip listened
to the people of San Francisco,

who were tired of scooters
being thrown everywhere,

and actually went to the city and said,

“We will deploy the service,

but we will respond
to the people’s requirements

that we organize ourselves
around a set of rules.”

They self-governed their behavior,
and they won the contract

over some very powerful companies.

BF: So speaking of guidelines
and self-governance,

you’ve spent an entire lifetime
creating guidelines and norms

for the internet.

Do you think those days are over?

Who is going to guide,
who is going to control,

and who is going to create those norms?

FC: The rules that govern
the technology layers of the internet

are now well put in place,

and I was very busy for a few years
setting those rules

around the part of the internet
that makes the internet one network.

The domain-name system, the IP numbers,

all of that is in place.

However, as we get now
into the upper layers of the internet,

the issues that affect
me and you every day –

privacy, security, etc. –

the system to create norms for those
unfortunately is not in place.

So we do have an issue.

We have a system
of cooperation and governance

that really needs to be created right now

so that companies, governments
and the citizenry can agree

how this new digital world
is going to advance.

BF: So what gives
a digital company any incentive?

Let’s say – Facebook comes to mind –

they would say they have
their users' best interests at heart,

but I think a lot of people
would disagree with that.

FC: It’s been very difficult to watch
how tech companies have reacted

to the citizenry’s response
to their technologies.

And some of them, two or three years ago,
basically dismissed it.

The word that I heard in many board rooms
is, “We’re just a technology platform.

It’s not my issue
if my technology platform

causes families
to go kill their girls in Pakistan.

It’s not my issue. It’s their problem.

I just have a technology platform.”

Now, I think we are now entering a stage

where companies are starting to realize
this is no longer sustainable,

and they’re starting to see the pushback

that’s coming
from people, users, citizens,

but also governments
that are starting to say,

“This cannot be.”

So I think there is a maturity
that is starting to set,

especially in that Silicon Valley area,

where people are beginning to say,
“We have a role.”

So when I speak to these leaders, I say,

“Look, you could be the CEO,
a very successful CEO of a company,

but you could also be a steward.”

And that’s the key word.

“You could be a steward
of the power you have

to shape the lives and the economies
of billions of people.

Which one do you want to be?”

And the answer is,
it’s not one or the other.

This is what we are missing right now.

So when an adult like Brad Smith,
the president of Microsoft,

said a few months ago,

“We need a new set of Geneva Conventions

to manage the security
of the digital space,”

many of the senior leaders
in Silicon Valley

actually spoke against his words.

“What do you mean, Geneva Convention?

We don’t need any Geneva Conventions.
We self-regulate.”

But that mood is changing,

and I’m starting to see many leaders say,

“Help us out.”

But here lies the conundrum.

Who is going to help those leaders
do the right thing?

BF: So who is going to help them?

Because I’d love
to interview you for an hour,

but give me your biggest fear
and your best hope

for how this is going to work out.

FC: My biggest hope
is that we will become each stewards

of this new digital world.

That’s my biggest hope,

because I do think, often,
we want to put the blame on others.

“Oh, it’s these CEOs.
They’re behaving this way.”

“These governments are not doing enough.”

But how about us?

How is each of us actually taking
the responsibility to be a steward

of the digital space we live in?

And one of the things I’ve been pushing
on university presidents

is we need every engineering and science
and computer science student

who is about to write
the next line of code

or design the next IoT device

to actually have in them
a sense of responsibility and stewardship

towards what they’re building.

So I suggested we create a new oath,

like the Hippocratic Oath,

so that every student
entering an engineering program

takes a technocratic oath or a wisdom oath

or some oath of commitment
to the rest of us.

That’s my best hope, that we all rise.

Because governments and businesses
will fight over this power game,

but where are we?

And unless we play into that power table,

I think we’ll end up in a bad place.

My biggest fear?

My biggest fear,
to be very tactical today,

what is keeping me up at night

is the current war between
the West, the liberal world,

and China,

in the area of artificial intelligence.

There is a real war going on,

and for those of us who have lived
through the nuclear nonproliferation age

and saw how people agreed

to take some very dangerous
things off the table,

well, the Carnegie Endowment
just finished a study.

They talked to every country
that made nuclear weapons

and asked them,

“Which digital ‘weapon’
would you take off the table

against somebody else’s
schools or hospitals?”

And the answer –

from every nuclear power –
to this question was,

nothing.

That’s what I’m worried about …

The weaponization of the digital space,

and the race to get there.

BF: Well, it sounds like
you’ve got a lot of work to do,

and so do the rest of us.

Fadi, thank you so much.
I really appreciate it.

FC: Thank you.

(Applause)

布林·弗里德曼:所以你
说在 20 世纪,

全球权力掌握
在政府手中。

在这个数字世纪之初,

它真的转移到了公司

,并且在未来,
它会转移到个人。

我采访了很多人

,他们说你错了

,他们把赌注押在公司身上。

那么为什么你是对的

,为什么个人会胜出呢?

Fadi Chehadé:因为公司
迎合个人

,我们作为公民

需要开始了解
,我们

在塑造世界
将如何被治理、向前发展方面发挥着重要作用。

是的,确实,现在的拉锯战发生
在政府之间,政府将

大部分权力拱手让给了公司,

因为互联网不是
围绕政府拥有权力的民族国家体系

建立的。

互联网是跨国的。

这不是国际化的,
也不是全国性的

,因此这些公司
变得非常强大。

他们塑造了我们的经济。

他们塑造了我们的社会。

政府不知道该怎么做。

现在,他们正在做出反应。

我担心,如果我们不
作为公民——

在我看来
,这是凳子上最重要的一条腿——

不扮演我们的角色,

那么你是对的。

批评者,或者告诉
你企业会占上风的人,是对的。

它会发生。

BF:那么你是说个人
会强迫企业

或企业会被迫
做出反应,

还是担心他们不会做出反应?

FC:我想他们会的。

看看两周前,

一家名为 Skip 的小公司
战胜了 Uber 和 Lyft 以及所有人

,真正
获得了旧金山踏板车业务的许可证。

如果你读到为什么 Skip 赢了,

因为 Skip
听了旧金山人民的意见,

他们厌倦了到处乱扔滑板车

,实际上去了城市说,

“我们会部署服务,

但我们会
回应 人们的要求

,我们
围绕一套规则组织起来。”

他们自治自己的行为,
并赢得

了一些非常强大的公司的合同。

BF:所以说到指导方针
和自治,

你花了一生的时间为互联网
制定指导方针和规范

你认为那些日子已经结束了吗?

谁来指导,
谁来控制

,谁来制定这些规范?

FC:
管理互联网技术层的规则

现在已经到位,

几年来我一直忙于围绕互联网部分
制定这些规则

,使互联网成为一个网络。

域名系统、IP 号码,

所有这些都已到位。

然而,随着我们现在
进入互联网的上层,

每天影响我和你的问题——

隐私、安全等——不幸的是,

为这些人创建规范的系统
还没有到位。

所以我们确实有问题。

我们有一个真正需要立即创建
的合作和治理系统,

以便公司、政府
和公民能够

就这个新的数字
世界将如何发展达成一致。

BF:那么是什么给
了数字公司任何激励?

假设——想到 Facebook——

他们会说
他们把用户的最大利益放在心上,

但我认为很多人
会不同意这一点。

FC:很难
观察科技公司

对公民
对其技术的反应有何反应。

而他们中的一些人,在两三年前,
基本上不屑一顾。

我在许多会议室听到的一句话
是,“我们只是一个技术平台。

如果我的技术平台

导致巴基斯坦的家庭杀死他们的女孩,

那不是我的问题。这不是我的问题。这是他们的问题。

我只是有 一个技术平台。”

现在,我认为我们正在进入一个阶段

,公司开始意识到
这不再是可持续的

,他们开始看到

来自人们、用户、

公民以及政府的抵制
,他们开始说,

“ 这不可能。”

所以我
认为已经开始成熟,

特别是在硅谷地区,

人们开始说,
“我们有一个角色。”

因此,当我与这些领导者交谈时,我会说,

“看,你可以成为
CEO,一个非常成功的公司 CEO,

但你也可以成为管家。”

这就是关键词。

“你可以

成为塑造数十亿人的生活和经济
的权力的管家。

你想成为哪一个?”

答案是,
这不是一个或另一个。

这就是我们现在所缺少的。

所以当像微软总裁布拉德史密斯这样的成年人

几个月前说

“我们需要一套新的日内瓦公约

来管理
数字空间的安全”时,硅谷的

许多高级领导人

实际上反对他的 字。

“你是什么意思,日内瓦公约?

我们不需要任何日内瓦公约。
我们自我监管。”

但这种情绪正在改变

,我开始看到许多领导人说,

“帮助我们。”

但这里有一个难题。

谁来帮助这些领导者
做正确的事?

BF:那么谁来帮助他们呢?

因为我
很想采访你一个小时,

但请告诉我你最大的恐惧

对这将如何解决的最大希望。

FC:我最大的希望
是我们将

成为这个新数字世界的每一位管家。

这是我最大的希望,

因为我确实认为,
我们经常想把责任推给别人。

“哦,是这些CEO。
他们的行为是这样的。”

“这些政府做得还不够。”

但是我们呢?

我们每个人实际上是如何
承担起成为

我们所生活的数字空间管家的责任的?

我一直在
推动大学校长的一件事

是,我们需要每一个

即将
编写下一行代码

或设计下一个物联网设备的工程、科学和计算机科学专业的学生,

让他们真正
有责任感和

对他们正在建设的东西的管理。

所以我建议我们创建一个新的誓言,

比如希波克拉底誓言,

这样每个
进入工程专业的学生

都会做出技术官宣誓、智慧誓言或

对我们其他人的承诺誓言。

这是我最大的希望,我们都站起来。

因为政府和企业
会为这场权力博弈而战,

但我们在哪里?

除非我们进入那个权力表,否则

我认为我们最终会处于一个糟糕的境地。

我最大的恐惧?

我最大的恐惧是
,今天非常有策略,

让我夜不能寐的

是目前
西方、自由世界

和中国之间

在人工智能领域的战争。

一场真正的战争正在上演

,对于我们这些经历
过核不扩散时代

并看到人们

同意将一些非常危险的
事情从桌面上排除的

人来说,卡内基基金会
刚刚完成了一项研究。

他们与每个
制造核武器的国家进行了交谈,

并问他们:


你会从桌面上拿下哪种数字‘武器’来

对付别人的
学校或医院?”

而每个核大国
对这个问题的回答是,

什么都没有。

这就是我担心的……

数字空间的武器化,

以及实现目标的竞赛。

BF:嗯,听起来
你有很多工作要做,

我们其他人也是如此。

法迪,非常感谢。
对此,我真的非常感激。

FC:谢谢。

(掌声)