This review was completed in May 2024 for the subject Philosophy, Computation, and Digital Humanities within the Master's Program in Theoretical and Practical Philosophy at the National University of Distance Education (UNED).
Review: José Francisco Álvarez, Nuevas capacidades y nuevas desigualdades en la sociedad red. Laguna: Revista de Filosofía, 42, pp 9-28. 2018.
In New Capacities and New Inequalities in the Network Society, Professor J. Francisco Álvarez concludes that "digital services and products that expand human capacities can help overcome individual limitations but also facilitate the emergence of new types of inequalities" (Álvarez, 2018).
We believe that the article is framed to encompass future debates that will continue to arise around its central theme. Seven years after its publication, a significant time in terms of technology, inequalities have deepened, and new debates have emerged, particularly revolving around artificial intelligence. Some of the solutions proposed by the author to address the unintended consequences of technological change have also evolved significantly, especially those related to blockchain technology.
In terms of structure, the author begins with a preamble recounting his personal journey and interest in these topics, particularly the philosophy of science and technology with a focus on sociotechnological transformations. From there, he focuses on the inequalities generated by technology and the importance of addressing them through digital literacy and the need for public authorities to act within the digital society, with special attention to the emergence of new disabilities. Álvarez concludes the first part by reflecting on the importance of net neutrality. In the second part, he argues that we should capitalize on technological transformation to improve the quality of life for citizens. He also advocates for a universal basic right to functional digital literacy, asserting that many social and political activities are mediated through digital means. The article ends with a discussion on public goods in the digital sphere.
Looking more closely, Álvarez delves into the thesis of the article from the outset, arguing that technological advances deeply transform professions, as "new capacities are generated while new inequalities expand if, at the very least, indispensable educational processes to acquire these capacities are not advanced." He provides examples, such as how translators were impacted by the perfection of Google’s simultaneous translation. Today, we can consider how all professions will be affected by advances in artificial intelligence. It seems logical to assume that we are facing an even greater challenge now. If, as Álvarez suggests, we do not advance in "new forms of literacy," many people will no longer be able to contribute value in their work environments, and they will consequently be left behind.
Álvarez delves into the concept of literacy, always in relation to the digital society, to establish that "digital literacy" requires an effort beyond merely ensuring access to the internet. In this regard, he mentions that despite the necessary educational process, we are facing such a significant social change that the process is adaptive and demands a significant effort. This, combined with the emergence of new functionalities that, in Álvarez's words, "are essential to perform basic elementary activities directly related to the role of full-fledged citizens in our societies," leads to the displacement and marginalization of certain segments of the population, particularly the elderly and other vulnerable groups. The result is the emergence of new forms of disability that, therefore, must be addressed by public authorities.
We agree with Álvarez that both the need to guarantee basic rights and the need to address situations leading to new forms of disability require public authorities to step in, even though they are sometimes responsible for these issues. Consider the numerous criticisms public administrations have received for the difficulties in handling online procedures (Maqueda, 2022). Although the author does not mention this, we find it noteworthy that these disabilities make affected citizens particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks. In our opinion, since the state is the ultimate guarantor of citizen security, this is another argument for prioritizing investment in digital literacy.
After outlining the need for public authorities to address new forms of disability, Álvarez highlights that public authorities have not been concerned with creating the necessary public goods in the digital society. He uses the example of how email providers are private today, whereas ordinary mail was once controlled by public entities. Álvarez argues that public authorities are no less prone to generating inequalities in the creation of public goods online, while emphasizing that in some areas, the technical viability to avoid dependence on private individuals or groups already exists. In our opinion, after the significant development of blockchain technology since the article’s publication, it is even more technically feasible today. Consider new public spaces on the web, such as the social protocols Farcaster or Mastodon (Krishnan, 2023), which allow the creation of social networks or any app imaginable. Moreover, we believe that due to the decentralized nature of this technology, state intervention in the creation of these public goods is unnecessary. However, we still believe the state is equally essential in implementing policies aimed at digital literacy to prevent these existing tools from being limited to technologists and early adopters.
Álvarez concludes the first part of his article by referencing the important debate on net neutrality that was taking place at the time. Today, this debate has shifted to specific mass-use products and services, like social networks. The debate revolves around whether, given the importance of these spaces (Wilson, 2022), they should be controlled by private entities, considering the risk of arbitrary management (e.g., promoting or suppressing certain content) or being driven solely by economic interests. The acquisition of X, formerly Twitter, by Elon Musk has reignited the debate and prompted many users to migrate to new models like the ones mentioned earlier.
In the second part of the article, Álvarez argues that we should capitalize on technological transformation to improve the quality of life for citizens. To do so, the author believes that the participation of the humanities and social sciences in technology development is necessary and that current trends are distancing them from this goal. Today, this problem persists if we look at the interest in purely technical studies versus humanistic ones (Bogost, 2024), as well as the ethical conflicts seemingly taking place within OpenAI, the U.S. company leading artificial intelligence development (Leike, 2024).
We find the author's exercise of developing the notion of potential capacities particularly interesting, drawing conceptually from Amartya Sen.
From this perspective, focusing on the sociotechnological transformation brought about by the interconnection of the internet, social networks, and mobile devices, Álvarez reflects on new possibilities for action and life for individuals and social groups. He does this by once again placing at the center the basic universal right to functional digital literacy, arguing that many social and political activities are mediated by digital means. He also emphasizes the "construction of citizenship," which reminds us of Michael Sandel's reflections (Sandel, 2011) on the importance of public spaces to prevent social segregation. In a world where the internet, social networks, and mobile devices are focusing on economic and political goals that isolate individuals, this goal seems fundamental. Álvarez's focus on potential capacities, instead of the dangers and restrictions to freedoms and privacy posed by information technologies (Hidalgo-Barquero, 2024), caught our attention.
The article concludes with an exploration of public goods aimed at adapting how we reflect on them in the digital reality. This reflection reminds us of the mindset shift many industries need to adopt in the face of Web3's arrival and, ultimately, the importance of being proactive in the face of change rather than remaining neutral.
References
Álvarez, J.F. (2018). Nuevas capacidades y nuevas desigualdades en la sociedad red. Laguna: Revista de Filosofía, 42, pp 9-28.
Bogost, I. (2024). Universities Have a Computer-Science Problem. The Atlantic. Disponible en: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/computing-college-cs-majors/677792/
Hidalgo-Barquero, F.J. (2024). ¿Se estancará el progreso tecnológico en los próximos 100 años? El blog de Fran Hidalgo-Barquero. Disponible en: https://franhbj.substack.com/p/se-estancara-el-progreso-tecnologico
Krishnan, S. (2023). You’re Not Imagining It: Social Media Is in Chaos. The New York Times. Disponible en: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/15/opinion/social-media-threads-twitter-reddit.html
Leike, J. (2024). I joined because I thought OpenAI would be the best place in the world to do this research. However, I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company's core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point [Post]. X. Disponible en: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498178346549382
Maqueda, A. (2022). El 61% de los usuarios han tenido problemas al usar las webs o apps de administraciones públicas. Newtral. Disponible en: https://www.newtral.es/apps-administracion-publica/20221205/
Sandel, M. J. (2011). Justicia. ¿Hacemos lo que debemos? Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial.
Wilson, F. (2022). Twitter is too important to be owned and controlled by a single person. The opposite should be happening. Twitter should be decentralized as a protocol that powers an ecosystem of communication products and services [Post]. X. Disponible en: https://x.com/fredwilson/status/1514564762142752768