Question

(a) Social Impact

What is the impact of the Internet on society? Today and in five years from now in 2024?

(b) Addiction

Are we addicted to our smart phone & apps?

(c) No Connection

The more things automate, the less we interact with one another. Not just to communicate, but we are disconnected from the value chain. 50 years ago the local grocer knew you and your whole family by name, 100 years ago you knew the farmer who grew your food. today, your only point of contact for your groceries is the check out clerk ("Paper or plastic"). Think about that for a moment. And, tomorrow? tomorrow, it's contactless payment. And then you will have zero point contact with the (food) supply chain.

(d) Privacy and Trust

Facebook violated user privacy (and as a result, user trust) through the Cambridge Analytica (CA) data scandal. CA used the data to deliver messages to different psychographic targets, unknowingly. Social media is used to impact the outcome of elections - not only in the US. This is impacting democracy.

Answer 1

(a) How society is affected by the internet?

The Internet recently has changed its influence on society at various levels which includes communication, access to knowledge, and social interaction.

Access, capabilities, and developing countries

According to the vision of the Internet Society, the Internet is for everyone, but it didn't quite happen for everyone. Internet access is important for empowering other groups, in particular women, to link them to global markets and communities. Yet in Africa, women are 50 percent less likely than men to be online; and there are demographic inequalities that also affect people with disabilities, and people without computer skills.

Internet and this flourishing world

A survey by an Internet Community of 2,100 people around the world discovered that people are bullish on the emerging markets whose benefits greatly outweigh the potential risks. On the contrary, Internet discussions in the West risk missing the true sense of excitement and fear that many people in developing countries experience when going online.

Dividing Digitally

Connectivity is rapidly growing, but some areas don't do as well as others. Access' is not as simple as providing an Internet connection for people. Numerous, multifaceted factors are involved in the digital divisions, including gender mainlining, access to education and expertise, lack of regional content, lack of human presence, and poor local supply chain. All these issues need to be addressed if we are to fulfill the dream of the' Internet for All.'

Giving voice to every individual

One case can be made that the Chatham House Rule is comparable in the' real' world to the vision of the' Internet for All' by the Internet Society. This rule seeks to ensure that people can talk with independence, but also with security. It offers a forum for a thorough discussion of a topic and this gives legitimacy. Technical community members may view confidentiality as secrecy, but people of good faith need some room for free talking and interacting on difficult issues.

Real-life effects

The case can be made that in some cases, hate speech can cause real-world acts that endanger the personal safety of many. In Rwanda, for example, where hate media played a big part in triggering the 1994 genocide, the state is now trying to limit what is published online. In early 2017, the Cameroon government blocked the English-speaking part of the country's 93-day Internet access. The government said it reserved the right to resist using the Internet as a tool for fanning internal division and hatred. Internet filtering and shutdowns, however, cause substantial collateral damage, and in the case of Cameroon, for example, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression was condemned as an 'appalling breach ' of the right to freedom of speech.

Internet and globalization are running sequential economic growth

Governments worldwide is accepting the Internet as a major factor for increasing growth. States are devoting themselves to linking more people (in line with the ITU target of 1.5 billion by 2020) to advance the progress that the Internet economy will bring.

Threats

During the past, when government agencies were worried about Data security, they centered on the top 5% of high-risk incidents, including serious attacks on infrastructure. These attacks, while likely disruptive, are unusual compared to the constant cyber-incidents that affect the general population. Consequently, governments are increasingly interested in civil use Internet. Furthermore, the emergence of the modern Internet has contributed to security threats by non-state actors such as extremists and hackers to States. Governments also learn how to respect the confidentiality of private data in criminal investigations.

Democracy and business

Events brought questions about political elections in 2016. Notably, many people are concerned about the role of social media in building filter bubbles and echo chambers, and spreading false news, following the Brexit vote in the UK and the results of the US elections.

Extreme behavior

One speaker raised the point that on two sites with the highest user bases the vast majority of extreme behavior is carried out. There have been numerous attempts to establish standards of conduct or to develop technical solutions that could filter severe materials. When marketers started quitting the networks did the companies do anything about it, as they saw the partnership damaging their logos.

Future

• The Internet might give us the right to have cast our votes over our smartphones or computer.
• Completly digitalization of transactions might make an old aged persons technically handicap.
• People might become more introvert as today's generating is already facing a problem with interpersonal skills due to too much communication over digital media platforms.
• Already tracking done by companies such as Google and Microsoft hampers privacy concerns. Knowing too much about a person by these companies might give them access to full personal data which is not a good sign.

(b) Addiction

Are we really stuck to our smartphones?

We are growing up in a world where internet access is constantly at our disposal and by pressing a button as part of the Facebook generation, we can connect to others. ' Giving visitors a Wi-Fi password and a cup of tea is increasingly common. We've become smartphone addicts. Smartphones are, of course, helpful and pioneered our lives in many ways. Thanks to thousands of downloadable apps, we can do almost anything when we're out. It seems a shame, though, that these addictive technology pieces gradually take on our lives. It's so easy to rely on our phones, whether you find your way with the app or just check the time. As a result, we become more antisocial, opting for the internet rather than talking face-to-face. Even if we socialize, most of us struggle without our phones. They invented telephones to keep us connected. In the endless list of social media outlets, we can now contact each other and start losing real communication. People are increasingly connected across screens rather than in-person, although it is more popular than ever with applications and websites related dating. An artist recently published pictures portraying individuals and editing their smartphones and tablets in social environments. The effect was a series of powerful, perhaps ironically viral images. They force people to awaken that we no longer communicate properly with each other.

(c) No Connection

The Future of the Internet: More Automation and less Empathy:

In examining AI's potential, McKinsey & Company identifies five important factors to be taken into account: ' (1) technical feasibility; (2) cost of automating; (3) relative scarcity, skills, and costs of workers who might otherwise be doing the activity; (4) benefits (e.g., superior performance) of Automation beyond labor cost substitution; and (5) regulatory and social acceptance considerations;

Can't replicate empathy

Computers will never experience pain nor can they fear death or experience real empathy. Although machines will definitely be able to feign empathy, they will never actually be able to experience it.

Innately human disorders are cognitive empathy (the ability to understand the mental states of other humans), as well as emotional empathy (the urge to react to the mental states of other humans with acceptable emotions).

Where automation can not work

Definitely, when it comes to medicine, we want to keep on working with highly trained personnel, even though there are computers that help the doctors find the correct diagnosis and treatment. Although a machine can evaluate a reasonable treatment plan — and as we recognize there are few fixed things in medication — we want to work with such a doctor who has been trained to communicate to patients through options and provide the treatment protocol — and who understands that art in science.

People are still interested. And that's important to remember. Even in scenarios that don't involve advanced education like doctors, it doesn't mean that we don't want to interact with people instead of machines as human beings.

For example, there's technology to replace a waiter with an iPad system. One San Francisco restaurant took consumers out of the equation. After placing the order on the iPad, little cubbie brings food — no waiters are required— but not everyone wants to have the same kind of experience. Most people like being greeted by someone who not only takes the order but also answers menu questions and gets your food. Likewise with Uber or Lyft. Definitely, driverless cars are growing into reality, and car manufacturers want to go that path because it's cheaper for them, but that doesn't necessarily signify that all customers will enjoy driverless driving. Some like talking about the experience of drivers. It's more than just providing (or enriching car services) from A to B. It's not about being a non-acceptor of technology. Technology is marching adamantly forward, and arguing otherwise would be nonsense, but certain things remain basic, and contact between people will remain among them. Just because tech is available, that doesn't mean it's always the best option in any case.

(d) Privacy and Trust

The decrease in our privacy started a few decades ago when the Internet was created. In recent days, we are facing many issues and there are various ways to put our private information at risk.

Data-based targeting of voters is nothing new. Nonetheless, during his electoral campaigns, Obama gained a remarkable reputation for using social media revolutionarily. By using an analytics device called "Ada," it was later used by Hillary Clinton in 2016, Obama was able to identify few segments of the population who were then targeted by activists via conventional "knock and call" techniques.

And here is where the importance of Facebook is evident. It's very easy to forget that Facebook's commodity is not its website content, which it can not produce. Its commodity is its customers, its data, its details, that can all be sold to third parties for corporate advertising undertakings or political warfare, as with Cambridge Analytica. The new oil has become records. This is why Cambridge Analytica billed Alexander Kogan $8 million for his seemingly dubious device that collected data.

Based on these results, Cambridge Analytica then used the same framework that Facebook allowed for commercial companies, tailored advertising for each individual. Instead of advertisements for books, shoes, or other material items, however, Cambridge Analytica's ads were designed to exploit these "Big Five" personality points to eventually influence and change each individual user's political opinions. Cambridge Analytica and its consumers were then able to rely on the innermost fears, worries, and anxieties of a person, targeting these tensions with political statements that would, in theory, cause political change. Not so surprising, this ability to manipulate an individual's thinking process led to the idea that the Orwellian paradigm is actually usable.

Just because the viability of a "Psychological Warfare Weapon" is not yet possible, however, it does not ensure it will remain so. Data is continually improving in quality and in usefulness. It would be naive to dismiss the possibility it can find and exploit human psychology.