In what do we trust? The Fujitsu Social Media Night 2019

Why does a company like Fujitsu organize a Social Media Night on Trust in the Age of Fake News? Why is it dedicating an entire congress to Human Centric Innovation – Driving a Trusted Future? Because trust is the basis of interaction. No business without trust. Sounds simple, but Virtualization and Artificial Intelligence (AI) put confidence in more than a rip.

Two keynotes gave the topic its own twist: Kate Russell, a British journalist and tech blogger (BBC, SKY) went in search of the origins of false news, different categories. She pleaded for more education, better technology, stronger monitoring and more critical thinking. She recommended that the term fake news not be used, as it would be ennobled by continuous repetition as something factual. Alternative Facts is indeed the claim. A public discourse space needs trust, transparency, protection, robust freedoms, break-up of echo chambers – and openness to change in the media as well as in society. Kate Russell presented an initiative to expose Fake News earlier.

The Norwegian philosopher Anders Indset (“quantum economy”, “wild knowledge”) questioned whether there is this publicly controllable space, that is still giving. He looked beyond the currently rather irrelevant use of social media and asked the legitimate question of what a truly mature digitized society should look like. Visually pleasurable, in the scenario beyond insta-glossiness, snackable Twittercontent and finger food threw into the room: spiritual man meets angry young men in their 30s who hated the system. The old, Adam Smith-oriented concept of economy and capitalism is not in the new world again. How can one be further developed with the words of the Dalai Lama? This be the task, all for a think up output in the remainder. He recommended everyone to keep a daily lesson in the calendar. Indset pleaded for recollecting what is essential for people with a European value horizon. Freedom, dignity, autonomy, humanity, experience for example. To take his decisions in his own hands, to allow experiences of kindness and humanity on a small scale. For this purpose, it is necessary to get out of the basic assumptions of the system to perform a system change.

In the ensuing discussion, Joseph Reger, Chief Technology Officer Europe (Fujitsu), and Paul van der Lingen, Program Manager (NetApp), were expanded. Although the participants argued at various levels of discussion, it was not. The topic itself has numerous dimensions, not everything fits one and the same answer. In addition: It is an open heart surgery. The heart of democracy is beating – and at the same time it should be beyond it

With three simple questions and answers the whole dilemma can be outlined.

Who do we trust most?


Who after?

Everything that corresponds to our values.

Which form gives confidence expression?

The ones that both believe the most: kiss, handshake, contract, blockchain, sensors, quanta ….

That we trust ourselves – and our free judgment – could be a mere guess. How and why it works can be read philosophically (Kant, Freud, Nietzsche, Lacan, etc.) and neuroscientifically: # Destruction # Subject.

That we trust others who share our values ​​has not only confirmed neuroscience. Values ​​in which we recognize ourselves lead to the release of binding hormones. They therefore function as a means of reducing stress by reducing complexity. Only: the danger of all closed (value) systems – self-referentiality, hierarchy formation, abuse of power, etc. – threatens just here. The Filterbubble amplifies the problem, however, massive.

At the same time it turns out that values ​​are neither historically nor absolutely a consistent good. Especially when we think about their extension or change by AI, values ​​as we know them belong to disposable factors.

Our solution strategies to fake news involve fundamental decisions that touch on the question “How do we want to live and prosper in the future?”. In a nutshell, we have three options to choose from:

More information, as it were the communication homoeopathic solution, fight like with like

More experiment, as it were the game-theoretical-system-disrupting solution, because only beyond the system can new ways emerge

More conviction / settlement (religion, ideology, ideation, utopia), as it were the ideological-decisionist solution, because only what is true can provide binding orientation and support.

Which model we seek for publicity and privacy, which role autonomy and the freedom of humans play in the age of artificial intelligence, have deeper consequences than some would like to admit. The question under which presuppositions (ie subsidence) consciousness is possible has considerable influence: on truth, ethics, educational concepts, public interest, public opinion, politics and social decision-making. Even if the goal is to be a noble, a world without war, hunger, disease, old age, death, that man, as we know him today, will play the same role in it, may be doubted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *