‘Technology is no silver bullet: it can create new problems’

Blockchain and artificial intelligence are impressive technologies, but they are far from miracle solutions to our societal problems. That is the argument made by Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn, a researcher at the University of Groningen. In this episode of the JTS Scholar Series, he calls for a broader public debate on how technology is developed and applied. Universities, he argues, have a crucial role to play in that conversation. ‘The academic community has become too reactive.’

Text: Jelle Posthuma

'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.' It is 1993, the very early days of the consumer internet, when Peter Steiner creates his cartoon of two dogs for The New Yorker, featuring what would become a world famous caption. The cartoon became popular because it perfectly captured the essence of online anonymity. 'This is exactly the internet I grew up with in the 90s,' says Campbell-Verduyn, associate professor of International Political Economy.

Accountability or anonymity, or both?

The JTS Scholar Campbell-Verduyn is an expert in the field of digital identity. Over the past decades, a lot has changed, he argues. Governments and companies are trying to gain more control over the digital identity of internet users. 'Major credit card companies have played an important role in this, because they want to know who they are doing business with. Due to terrorism and money laundering, this process has accelerated.'

Within the European Union, there are also increasing initiatives in the area of digital identity, such as a personal digital wallet for every EU citizen. Ultimately, these developments revolve around tracing online transactions and accountability for online behaviour, the researcher says. Often for good reasons: ‘There’s some horrible stuff online, so there is certainly room for more accountability. But there are domains where much more debate is needed. For example, should we remove anonymity from online comments under videos?'

Campbell-Verduyn focuses on both sides of the debate. 'It is often very black and white. In my work, I try to present a more nuanced perspective.' Therefore, he also points to the risks of breaking anonymity, such as the dangers of identity fraud. 'If we store data from internet users, there is always a risk of theft. And what if you are a whistleblower in Russia? Then it could be very useful to be able to receive anonymous donations.'

Crypto: revolution or failure?

In his research, Campbell-Verduyn concentrates on digital technology. He mentions artificial intelligence and blockchain technology as dominant examples. The latter revolves around shared digital databases. It is the underlying technology for many cryptocurrencies, the most well known being Bitcoin. Digital identity and blockchain are closely connected. Cryptocurrencies make anonymous transactions possible. 'Within the blockchain world, anti government views tend to dominate, people prefer to remain anonymous.'

In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, Campbell-Verduyn's interest in alternative digital currency was sparked. 'Bitcoin was meant to slow the system down. Blockchain technology was supposed to lead to a payment system without central bankers. Users together form a network, and within this network everyone has a role. I found this democratizing idea appealing.' However, the researcher continues, little in the way of ‘fundamental change’ has come of the Bitcoin experiment so far, as it has largely turned into a speculative asset.

Technology as ‘silver bullet’

This 'failure' is linked to an excessive trust in technology. 'With every technological development, you need input from other disciplines. A technological innovation is often seen as the silver bullet for all our problems, but it can actually create new ones.' He cites artificial intelligence as another example. 'We can do fantastic things with AI, but at what cost? The use of water and energy is enormous. And then there are data centres, should we really be building them in a small country like the Netherlands?'

According to Campbell-Verduyn, this calls for a broad debate that includes all disciplines. And researchers have a responsibility to speak out clearly. 'The university has become very reactive, we see ourselves merely as producers of knowledge, while I think we could be much more assertive. It is important to step forward, for example on the climate crisis, even if that means we may sometimes be labelled by part of the public. The withdrawn attitude has not worked anyway. Universities have come under fire regardless. That has become clear from the recent budget cuts.'

Bye bye Big Tech

One issue Campbell-Verduyn speaks out about is the power of Big Tech companies. Last year, together with fellow researchers, he sent an open letter about the heavy dependence of the University of Groningen on American technology companies such as Google and Microsoft. 'It never seemed like a problem with presidents like Biden and Obama, but that has changed in recent years.'

The solution? According to the researcher, Europe should start building its own systems. The question is whether there are sufficient resources for this. 'I would say absolutely. We have many highly skilled people and one of the largest currencies in the world. We can take on debt to finance it.' However, he stresses that it is only possible as a European project. 'Willingness is growing rapidly, but coordination is needed. The Netherlands cannot do this alone.'

No easy road

The desire to become less dependent on large American companies is also reflected in a publishing initiative by Campbell-Verduyn. The academic publishing world is also heavily dependent on large companies such as Elsevier. That is why Campbell-Verduyn, together with Oskar Gstrein, associate professor at Campus Fryslân, founded a journal: The Yearbook on Data Autonomy 'YoDA', published by University of Groningen Press. 'It emerged from the ambition to develop independent and autonomous ways of preserving knowledge.'

The YoDA yearbook is an independent platform for publications in the field of data autonomy. 'As a university, we really need to become less dependent on major publishers, who in turn depend on large tech companies. This is not easy. We experienced that with our own small initiative. But we need platforms where we can independently preserve our knowledge for the next generation.'