Text: Marjolein de Jong | Photo: David Meulenbeld | October 20, 2021

As early as 1993, you were one of the founders of the social media platform De Digitale Stad, which introduced people to the internet. How did you end up on the “cyber path”?
“It was a combination of circumstances. In the 1980s, the end of the world seemed near. It was the era of the neutron bomb, high unemployment, and a housing crisis. No one was waiting for my generation. That gave us the freedom to reinvent ourselves. A do-it-yourself mentality led people to start their own businesses, launch their own magazines, radio and television productions, and create their own venues. That trend was reinforced and supported by the rise of the personal computer. Technology was the key to achieving that independence.

In addition, I’m curious about how things work. How else can you ensure that people have their own agency and aren’t at the mercy of governments and corporations? So it’s also important to be able to look under the hood of technology. It helps to realize that technology is designed. We humans create technology, and our cultural values are expressed through it. Public values haven’t been a central focus over the past thirty years. The reason Big Tech has so much power is that we’ve allowed them to build it up. So by making conscious choices, we can take control of it again.’

You studied philosophy. What kind of student were you?
“That ‘do-it-yourself’ mentality has been a part of me since I was young—even when it comes to academic life. In high school, I was already rebelling against the educational system and founded the Revolutionary Students’ Front. When I started studying philosophy at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), I was disappointed by the fragmentation of the curriculum, which was enforced by the government. In the first year, we were given syllabi with three pages on Hegel and two pages on Kant. How is that possible, I wondered. I wanted to read a real philosophical work.

I became fascinated by research into consciousness and perception. At a certain point, this caused me to become too detached from the world; I was living more and more in a paper reality. In the end, I didn’t finish my degree. Now I prefer to switch back and forth between those big theoretical questions and the concrete world of everyday life. With my hands in the clay, or like a hacker: with a screwdriver in hand.’

"We humans should not be treated as commodities. The government should not be allowed to force vaccinations on us, nor should it be allowed to invade our digital bodies."

What do you think is the biggest misconception when it comes to the internet and privacy?
“That people think they have to give up their privacy to use the internet. As if that’s just part of the deal. But it’s the tech industry’s business models that lead to the infringement of our privacy. We take things for granted that aren’t normal at all.

There’s much more at stake than just privacy. I prefer to use the word “sovereignty.” Your ability to act as a sovereign individual is at risk if, based on data profiling, you’re no longer eligible for an education, a job, insurance, or a reduced sentence. Your actions are increasingly restricted because the system doesn’t look at the person, but at the categorization.

I find it striking: when control over our own bodies is called into question—as is currently the case with vaccination—people are up in arms. When all kinds of data about you are collected, it constitutes a violation of your personal integrity. That data belongs to you and should be off-limits to commercial exploitation. We, as human beings, should not be treated as commodities. The state should not be allowed to force vaccination on us, nor should it be allowed to intrude upon our “data body.”’

You are receiving an honorary doctorate in recognition of your efforts to develop open, fair, and inclusive technology. How do you contribute to this as director of the Waag research institute and future lab?
“Waag’score messageis that technology must be fair, open, and inclusive. That means society must have ownership and knowledge to be able to help design the future. After all, technology is not neutral. Those who control data and algorithms and have access to systems hold more power than those without those privileges. Technology shifts the balance of power. With every euro that governments or companies spend on data and algorithms, the power imbalance grows.

Take the benefits scandal, for example. Just try, as a citizen, to seek redress without having access to that data. The position of citizens and civic initiatives weakens as technology, data, and algorithms play an increasingly prominent role in policy. To strengthen civic democracy, we must invest in the digital public sphere.’

'We’re struggling with the illusion that only people who’ve studied computer science are “nerdy” enough to understand technology.'

What do you think about the fact that we don’t have a minister for digital affairs?
“That’scompletely absurd. There’s a strong need to appoint a minister. I doubt it will happen. Just as we have a Ministry of Finance because all policy areas have a financial aspect, the same applies to digitalization. We need to develop comprehensive policy for that.”

Is this a sign of the government’s ignorance, or does it point to something else?
“The government has let itself be sidelined. First of all, there’s the idea that the government should stay out of the way with regulations, and especially shouldn’t ask difficult questions. That would supposedly be bad for innovation. We’re also grappling with the illusion that only people who’ve studied computer science are “nerdy” enough to understand technology. That’s a misconception. Digitalization is a transdisciplinary field that encompasses alpha, beta, and gamma aspects. I’m therefore glad that the humanities and social sciences are gaining ground. As far as I’m concerned, those are also constructive, design-oriented disciplines.’

The picture you’re painting isn’t a rosy one. What do you think we can still do about this?
“The entire internet needs to be overhauled. In the 1990s, we took turns down paths we shouldn’t have taken. Now it’s a matter of redesign and repair. That’s just as heroic a challenge as mitigating climate change. Literally, because it involves the same capital forces and the same interests. Sometimes even the same parties. For example, billions from the Saudi Arabian crown prince’s oil capital are flowing into the investment fund that keeps Uber afloat. Uber should have gone bankrupt long ago, but it’s being propped up. Why? They know their power is waning on the fossil fuels side. Capital is shifting toward digital platforms.”

'Right now, you can be sure that every app is, by definition, as leaky as a sieve, and that there are parties behind them trying to extract and appropriate as much value as possible.'

Nevertheless, you sound optimistic. Is that correct?
“I choose to say that it’s achievable. That’s not utopian, because I know: it’s a messy world. I just believe that imagination is a key factor. The story you tell yourself guides how we act. I can’t live with a narrative that says it’s all pointless anymore. We are narrative beings; we exist by virtue of our ability to turn things into stories. Without a story, we fall apart, we’re just quantum particles. Our economic models are stories, too, just like political strategies and science. I’m not an optimist who says, “Through our actions, we’ll solve everything,” but I do think we can make a huge difference by choosing a different narrative and adjusting our actions accordingly.’

What are the rules regarding technology that you personally follow?
“Right now, you can be sure that every app is, by definition, as leaky as a sieve, and that there are parties behind them trying to extract and appropriate as much value as possible. The mere fact that I have a cell phone with a weather app already makes me completely transparent to the world. I’m under no illusions.

Still, I make conscious choices. I turn off features like step counters and unsubscribed from Facebook a long time ago. But more importantly: I seek out technologies that do not abuse their position, that respect privacy, and that prioritize public values. I’m committed to promoting such initiatives and call on public institutions to do the same. By making these principles central to, for example, procurement policies and purchasing practices, we can have a huge impact. We can still turn the tide.'