Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Is Silicon Valley eroding democracy? A Q&A with Marietje Schaake
Marietje Schaake has watched Silicon Valley for years, and she has noticed something troubling: The US technology industry and its largest companies have gradually displaced democratic governments as the most powerful forces in people’s lives. In her newly released book, “The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley,” Schaake makes her case for how we got into this mess and how we can get ourselves out.
We spoke to Schaake, a former member of the European Parliament who serves as international policy director at the Stanford University Cyber Policy Center and international policy fellow at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. She is also a host of the GZERO AI video series. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
GZERO: How do private companies govern our lives in ways that governments used to — and still should?
Schaake: Tech companies decide on civil liberties and government decision-making in health care and border controls. There are a growing number of key decisions made by private companies that used to be made by public institutions with a democratic mandate and independent oversight. For-profit incentives do not align with those.
When tech companies curate our information environments for maximum engagement or ad sales, different principles take priority compared to when trust and verification of claims made about health or elections take precedence. Similarly, cybersecurity companies have enormous discretion in sharing which attacks they observe and prevent on their networks. Transparency in the public interest may mean communicating about incidents sooner and less favorably to the companies involved.
In both cases, governance decisions are made outside of the mandate and accountability of democratic institutions, while the impact on the public interest is significant.
Why do you present this not merely as a new group of powerful companies that have become increasingly important in our lives, but, as you write, as an “erosion of democracy”?
The more power in corporate hands that is not subject to the needed countervailing powers, the fewer insights and agency governments have to govern the digital layer of our lives in the public interest.
Why do you think technology companies have largely gone unregulated for decades?
Democrats and Republicans have consistently chosen a hands-off approach to regulating tech companies, as they believed that would lead to the best outcomes. We now see how naively idealistic and narrowly economically driven that approach was.
Silicon Valley is constantly lobbying against regulation, often saying that rules and bureaucracy would hold industry back and prevent crucial innovation. Is there any truth to that, or is it all talk?
Regulation is a process that can have endless different outcomes, so without context, it is an empty but very powerful phrase. We know plenty of examples where regulation has sparked innovation — think of electric cars as a result of sustainability goals. On the other hand, innovation is simply not the only consideration for lawmakers. There are other values in society that are equally important, such as the protection of fundamental rights or of national security. That means innovation may have to suffer a little bit in the interest of the common good.
What’s Europe’s relationship like with Silicon Valley at this moment after a series of first-mover tech regulations?
Many tech companies are reluctantly complying, after exhausting their lobbying efforts against the latest regulations with unprecedented budgets.
In both the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation and the AI Act, tech companies lobbied against the laws but ultimately complied or will do so in the future.
What’s different about this moment in AI where, despite Europe’s quick movement to pass the AI Act, there are still few rules around the globe for artificial intelligence companies? Does it feel different than conversations around other powerful technologies you discuss in the book, such as social media and cryptocurrency?
I have never seen governments step up as quickly and around the world, as I have in relation to AI, and in particular the risks. Part of that may be a backlash of the late regulation of social media companies, but it is significant and incomparable to any waves of other technological breakthroughs. The challenge will be for the democratic countries to work together rather than to magnify the differences between them.
You were at the UN General Assembly in New York last week, where there was a new Pact for the Future and HLAB-AI report addressing artificial intelligence governance at the international level. Does the international community seem to understand the urgency of getting AI regulation and governance right?
The sense of urgency is great, but the sense of direction is not clear. Moreover, the EU and the US really do not want to see any global governance of AI even if that is where the UN adds most value. The EU and US prefer maximum discretion and presumably worry they would have to compromise when cooperating with partners around the world. The US has continued its typical hands-off approach to tech governance in relation to AI as well.
There is also a great need to ensure the specific needs of communities in the Global South are met. So a global effort to work together to govern AI is certainly needed.
Back to the book! What can readers expect when they pick up a copy of ”The Tech Coup?”
Readers will look at the role of tech companies through the lens of power and understand the harms to democracy if governance is not innovated and improved. They will hopefully feel the sense of urgency to address the power grab by tech companies and feel hopeful that there are solutions to rebalance the relationship between public and private interests.
Can we actually save democracy from Silicon Valley — or is it too late?
The irony is that because so little has been done to regulate tech companies, there are a series of common-sense steps that can be taken right away to ensure governments are as accountable when they use technology for governance tasks, and that outsourcing cannot be an undermining of accountability. They can also use a combination of regulatory, procurement, and investment steps to ensure tech companies are more transparent, act in the public interest, and are ultimately accountable. This applies to anything from digital infrastructure to its security, from election technologies to AI tools.
We need to treat tech the way we treat medicine: as something that can be of great value as long as it is used deliberately.
Are US elections Safe? Chris Krebs is optimistic
The debate around the US banning TikTok is a proxy for a larger question: How safe are democracies from high-tech threats, especially from places like China and Russia?
There are genuine concerns about the integrity of elections. What are the threats out there and what can be done about it? No one understands this issue better than Chris Krebs. Krebs is best known as the former director of the US Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
In a high-profile showdown, Donald Trump fired Krebs in November 2020, after CISA publicly affirmed that the election was among the “most secure in history” and that the allegations of election corruption were flat-out wrong. Since then, Krebs has become the chief public policy officer at SentinelOne and cochairs the Aspen Institute’s U.S. Cybersecurity Working Group, and he remains at the forefront of the cyber threat world.
GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon spoke to him this week about what we should expect in this volatile election year.
Solomon: How would you compare the cyber threat landscape now to the election four years ago? Have the rapid advances in AI made a material difference?
Chris Krebs: The general threat environment related to elections tracks against the broader cyber threat environment. The difference here is that beyond just pure technical attacks on election systems, election infrastructure, and on campaigns themselves, we have a parallel threat of information operations, and influence operations —what we more broadly call disinformation.
This has picked up almost exponentially since 2016, when the Russians, as detailed in the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017, showed that you can get into the middle of domestic elections and pour kerosene on that conversation. That means it jumps into the real world, potentially even culminating in political violence like we saw on Jan. 6.
We saw the Iranians follow the lead in 2020. The intelligence community released another report in December that talked about how the Chinese attempted to influence the 2022 elections. We've seen the Russians are active too through a group we track called Doppelganger, specifically targeting the debate around the border and immigration in the US.
Solomon: When you say Doppelganger is “active,” what exactly does that mean in real terms?
Krebs: They use synthetic personas or take over existing personas that have some element of credibility and jump into the online discourse. They also use Pink Slime websites, which is basically fake media, and then get picked up through social media and move over to traditional media. They are taking existing divides and amplifying the discontent.
Solomon: Does it have a material impact on, say, election results?
Krebs: I was at an event back in 2019, and a former governor came up to me as we were talking about prepping for the 2020 election and said: “Hey, everything you just talked about sounds like opposition research, typical electioneering, and hijinks.”
And you know what? That's not totally wrong. But there is a difference.
Rather than just being normal domestic politics, now we have a foreign security service that's inserting itself in driving discourse domestically. And that's where there are tools that the intelligence services here in the US as well as our allies in the West have the ability to go in and disrupt.
They can get onto foreign networks and say, “Hey, I know that account right there. I am able to determine that the account which is pushing this narrative is controlled by the Russian security services, and we can do something with that.”
But here is the key: Once you have a social media influencer here in the US that picks up that narrative and runs with it, well, now, it's effectively fair game. It's part of the conversation, First Amendment protected.
Solomon: Let's move to the other side. What do you do about it without violating the privacy and free speech civil liberties of citizens?
Krebs: This is really the political question of the day. In fact, just last week there was a Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri that gets to this question of government and platforms working together. (Editor’s note: The case hinges on whether the government’s efforts to combat misinformation online around elections and COVID constitute a form of censorship). Based on my read, the Supreme Court was largely being dismissive of Missouri and Louisiana's arguments in that case. But we'll see what happens.
I think the bigger issue is that there is this broader conflict, particularly with China, and it is a hot cyber war. Cyber war from their military doctrine has a technical leg and there's a psychological leg. And as we see it, there are a number of different approaches.
For example, India has outlawed and banned hundreds of Chinese origin apps, including WeChat and TikTok and a few others. The US has been much more discreet in combating Chinese technology. The recent actions by the US Congress and the House of Representatives are much more focused on getting the foreign control piece out of the conversation and requiring divestitures.
Solomon: Chris, what’s the biggest cyber threat to the elections?
Krebs: Based on my conversations with law enforcement and the national security community, the number one request that they're getting from election officials isn't on the cyber side. It isn't on the disinformation side. It's on physical threats to election workers. We're talking about doxing, we're talking about swatting, we're talking about people physically intimidating at the polls and at offices. And this is resulting in election officials resigning and quitting and not showing up.
How do we protect those real American heroes who are making sure that we get to follow through on our civic duty of voting and elections? If those election workers aren't there, it's going to be a lot harder for you and me to get out there and vote.
Solomon: What is your biggest concern about AI technology galloping ahead of regulations?
Krebs: Here in the United States, I'm not too worried about regulation getting in front of AI. When you look at the recent AI executive order out of the Biden administration, it's about transparency and even the threshold they set for compute power and operations is about four times higher than the most advanced publicly available generative AI. And even if you cross that threshold, the most you have to do is tell the government that you're building or training that model and show safety and red teaming results, which hardly seems onerous to me.
The Europeans are taking a different approach, more of a regulate first, ask questions later, which I think is going to limit some of their ability to truly be at the bleeding edge of AI.
But I'll tell you this: We are using AI and cybersecurity to a much greater effect and impact than the bad guys right now. The best they can do right now is use it for social engineering, for writing better phishing emails, for some research, and for functionality. We are not seeing credible reports of AI being used to write new innovative malware. But in the meantime, we are giving tools that are AI powered to the threat hunters that have really advanced capabilities to go find bad stuff, to improve configurations, and ultimately take the security operations piece and supercharge it.
AI's rapid rise
In a remarkable shift, AI has catapulted to the forefront of global conversations within a span of just one year. From political leaders to multilateral organizations, the dialogue has swiftly transitioned from mere curiosity to deep-seated concern. Ian Bremmer, founder and president of GZERO Media and Eurasia Group, says AI transcends traditional geopolitical boundaries. Notably, the reins of AI's dominion rest not in governments but predominantly within the hands of technology corporations.
This unconventional dynamic prompts a recalibration of governance strategies. Unlike past challenges that could be addressed in isolation, AI's complexity necessitates collaboration with its creators—engineers, scientists, technologists, and corporate leaders. The emergence of a new era, where technology companies hold significant sway, has redefined the political landscape. The journey to understand and govern AI is a collaborative endeavor that promises both learning and transformation.
Watch the full conversation: Governing AI Before It’s Too Late
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- The AI power paradox: Rules for AI's power ›
- Podcast: Artificial intelligence new rules: Ian Bremmer and Mustafa Suleyman explain the AI power paradox ›
- Ian Bremmer explains: Should we worry about AI? ›
- The geopolitics of AI ›
- Making rules for AI … before it’s too late ›
- How should artificial intelligence be governed? ›
- How AI can be used in public policy: Anne Witkowsky - GZERO Media ›
When is criticizing Israel antisemitism?
Is it easier to be antisemitic today? Tragically, yes, says Israeli-American actor and activist Noa Tishby, who served as Israel’s Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism before Prime Minister Netanyahu dismissed her for speaking out against his controversial judicial reform agenda. She joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World for a wide-ranging conversation on the ancient roots and modern resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment. And it's not just coming from the right, says Tishby.
"It's totally fine to criticize Israeli politicians, Israeli policies, whatever.. But there's a strong sense in the political left right now, more accepted than it used to be, of denying Israel's right to exist," says Tishby. "Where it used to be, 'Let's just rid the world of the Jew and everything's gonna be fine.' Right? Nobody says that in a polite society today, but what they do say is, "Let's just rid the world of the Jewish State, and then everything will be fine."
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
TikTok, Huawei, and the US-China tech arms race
“When the Chinese get good at something, all of the sudden, the United States says, ‘This is a national security risk.’”
That’s what Shaun Rein, founder and managing director of the China Market Research Group, argued on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer while discussing the increasingly hostile geopolitical environment between the two superpowers.
Politics, trust & the media in the age of misinformation
Ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, GZERO World takes a hard look at the media’s impact on politics and democracy itself.
In 1964, philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, “the media is the message.” He meant that the way content is delivered can be more powerful than the content itself.
A lot’s changed since 1964, but the problem has only gotten worse. The ‘80s and ‘90s saw the rise of a 24/7 cable news cycle and hyper-partisan radio talk shows. The 21st century has thus far given us podcasts, political influencers, and the endless doom scroll of social media. And now, we’re entering the age of generative AI.
All of this has created the perfect ecosystem for information––and disinformation––overload. But there might be a bright spot at the end of the tunnel. In the world where it’s getting harder and harder to tell fact from fiction, news organizations, credible journalists, and fact-checkers will be more important than ever.
How has media changed our idea of truth and reality? And how can we better prepare ourselves for the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation that is almost certain to spread online as the 2024 US presidential election gets closer? Can trust in American’s so-called “Fourth Estate” be restored?
Ian Bremmer sits down with journalist and former CNN host Brian Stelter and Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor specializing in political history and partisan media.
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Coronavirus is "the Super Bowl of disinformation" ›
- Artificial intelligence and the importance of civics ›
- Should the US government be involved with content moderation? ›
- Be very scared of AI + social media in politics ›
- Who runs the world? ›
- Can we trust AI to tell the truth? - GZERO Media ›
- Will consumers ever trust AI? Regulations and guardrails are key - GZERO Media ›
Too many people have US security clearance: former House Intelligence Committee member
The US government has an over-classification problem. Too many documents are marked "secret" that shouldn't be. And according to this week's guest, the over-classification problem has also created an over-clearance problem. Jane Harman, a former nine-term Congresswoman who led high-level intelligence committees, says that the two problems are closely related. "We over-classify, we over-clear. Our clearance problem is very cumbersome" Harman tells Ian. As a result, many people with clearance tend to err on the side of classifying information rather than risking their position by making public the wrong document.
"I argued we needed a tiered classification system where you can clear people only up to a certain amount. In other words, a person who speaks a regional dialect could be given papers to read, but not told the context of the papers, so that person would just translate the language. "
But, Harman says, we're still a long way from solving this problem.
To see the full interview with Jane Harman, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
India after COVID
Few nations were as ravaged by COVID as India, especially when the Delta strain tore through the country in the spring of 2021. Delhi-based journalist Barkha Dutt experienced its toll as both a journalist and a daughter. Back when she first appeared on GZERO World in May 2021, she had just lost her father to COVID. She was simultaneously grieving and covering COVID's impact across India.
Two years later, Ian welcomes Dutt back on the show to discuss a wide range of US-India issues, but also to check in with her on how the trauma of COVID has changed her life, as well as the direction it has taken her country, two years later.
"It's been, personally, a very, very painful time, and professionally, ironically, some of my best work, and to reconcile that is quite a difficult thing to do, emotionally."
Tune in to “GZERO World with Ian Bremmer” on US public television to watch the full interview. Check local listings.