Paper Presentation AIES ’20, February 7–8, 2020, New York, NY, USA Technocultural Pluralism: A “Clash of Civilizations” in Technology? Osonde A. Osoba [email protected] RAND Corporation Santa Monica, CA ABSTRACT the global reach of such tech platforms (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp, At the end of the Cold War, the renowned political scientist, Samuel TikTok, etc.), these variations can give noisy hints about where Huntington, argued that future conflicts were more likely to stem technocultural fault-lines lie. Differentiation into these ecosystems from cultural frictions – ideologies, social norms, and political is likely characterized not just by concordance in tech adoption, systems – rather than political or economic frictions. Huntington but also by consensus in culture, values, policies, tech innovation, focused his concern on the future of geopolitics in a rapidly shrink- and deployment priorities. ing world. This paper argues that a similar dynamic is at play in We develop and explore two key hypotheses in relation to tech- the interaction of technology cultures. We emphasize the role of nocultures: culture in the evolution of technology and identify the particular • [Technocultural Frictions]: an AI “technocultural cold role that culture (esp. privacy culture) plays in the development of war” is already in progress. This refers to a state of ongo- AI/ML technologies. Then we examine some implications that this ing regulatory friction among multiple interacting techno- perspective brings to the fore. cultures or governance regimes. The effect of factors like effective geographic proximity, political necessity, and/or CCS CONCEPTS economic advantage conspire to make technocultural isola- • Social and professional topics → Governmental regulations; tion rare. And the inevitable interactions result in frictions. 1 Privacy policies; Transborder data flow. The focus here is on competitive or adversarial frictions . Put differently, technocultural friction refers to regulatory ACM Reference Format: frictions due to the necessary interaction among technology Osonde A. Osoba. 2020. Technocultural Pluralism: A “Clash of Civilizations” 2 in Technology?. In Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, policy spheres of influence . Ethics, and Society (AIES ’20), February 7–8, 2020, New York, NY, USA. ACM, • [Technocultural Pluralism]: the prospect of a global mono- New York, NY, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375834 lithic AI technoculture emerging in the near-future is im- plausible3. Persistent pluralism is more likely. Pluralism here 1 INTRODUCTION refers to persistent diversity in the global technoculture. The At the end of the Cold War, Samuel Huntington, argued that future primary support for this hypothesis is admittedly an ex- conflicts were more likely to stem from cultural frictions -– ideolo- trapolation. The extrapolation is based on two premises: 1.) gies, social norms, and political systems – rather than political or technology is strongly influenced by local culture; & 2.) there economic frictions [9, 10]. Huntington was focused on the future of continues to be strong global variation in cultures and values. geopolitics in a rapidly shrinking world. But his argument applies Then a basic extrapolation suggests that technology regimes as forcefully (if not more) to the interaction of what we might call will continue to reflect the diversity of cultures. technocultures. These hypotheses are not necessarily AI-specific. But the current This discussion will use the term technoculture to refer to the efflorescence of innovation in data-hungry machine learning tech- global patchwork of interacting technology ecosystems in which we nology provides a good sand-box for making our discussions more now live. These do not have to be geographically or geopolitically concrete. constrained. But they often do rehash geopolitical boundaries due This paper has two aims. The first aim is descriptive (like most to the influence that local governance exerts on technology develop- of Huntington’s original 1993 discussion). The aim is to describe ment and adoption. As a simple intuitive illustration of such distinct underlying factors and dynamics that foster the development of ecosystems, observe the variation in popular choice of social me- differentiated technocultures. We identify and clarify some key con- dia tech platforms across the globe circa 2016 (Figure 1.). Given cepts in the process. For example, we paint a clearer picture of the concept of a technoculture. This descriptive exploration is intended Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation 1 Not focusing on military frictions in this discussion in spite of the use of the “cold on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the war” metaphor. author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or 2 Whereas Huntington wrote about “civilizations,” we can think of the relevant units republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission of analysis here as policy spheres of influence. These may be national (e.g. China, and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. USA), subnational (e.g. California, Texas), or even supranational (e.g. the EU) aggregate AIES ’20, February 7–8, 2020, New York, NY, USA entities that exert some form of regulatory control over their geographical jurisdictions. © 2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. 3 This is not asserting impossibility in the long-run. That would require strong claims ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-7110-0/20/02...$15.00 about cultural evolution that cannot be supported by the simple inductive extrapolation https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375834 suggested here. 132 Paper Presentation AIES ’20, February 7–8, 2020, New York, NY, USA Figure 1: Geographical variation in the relative popularity of social media platforms based on 2016 3rd party data. Popula- tions in different jurisdictions tend to co-adopt signature collections of social media platforms. Examples of such collections include (WeChat, SinaWeibo, Qzone, BaiduTieba) and (Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Google+). There can also be variation in rates or patterns of adoption within the same platform collection. For example, the figure shows that North and South America share the same vector of co-adopted platforms. But the two demographics are separable based on the relative rates of adoption for the individual platforms within the same collection. Interestingly, the observed platform co-adoption clus- terings align quite closely to the cultural fault-lines Huntington outlined almost 30 years ago. We can roughly make out Western-Europe-and-USA-and-Australia, China, Eastern Europe, Japan, and Islamic-Hindu spheres of influence. (Data Cour- tesy of GlobalWebIndex.net). © Joshua S. Mendelsohn. to also serve a persuasive function. Technocultures are easier to governance implications? Hopefully this exploration starts us off track once we observe how the warp and weft of technology innova- with basic tools to gain more insight into these types of questions. tion, deployment, culture-specific norms, and regulation “conspire” to differentiate our global technology environment. The second 2 TECHNOCULTURE: A DEFINITION aim is to extend beyond pure description by highlighting notable First there is a question of what we mean by a technoculture. dynamics and implications of technocultural pluralism. It is worth The term technoculture here refers specifically to the combina- highlighting specifically the important implications of data privacy tion of a technology ecosystem and the culture4 in which it is em- policies, data localization, and population size as mechanisms for bedded. The concept of a technoculture forces an engagement with differentiation and evolution in current instances of technocultures. questions of how cultural contexts affect, influence, or determine Part of the motivation for this discussion is to counter a specific the evolution, deployment, and adoption of technology artifacts. perspective. This perspective anticipates a future regulatory sce- This will include questions about the controlling innovation cul- nario featuring a monolithic global technology ecosystem with little ture, the prioritization of problems for technological innovation, to no geographic cultural variation. Although this is admittedly a expected modes of deployment, etc. strawman position, elements of this position arise in technology policy conversations. The narrative of an impending technology 4 The word culture tends to raise intellectual hackles because of its supposedly nebulous monoculture may be seductive because it promises a future with a or imprecise definition. However definitional imprecision is not sufficient reasonfor simpler tech regulatory environment. But the simplicity of that hy- asserting non-existence. We use culture here to refer to persistent societal norms and values that circumscribe observed behavior. The social psychologist, Geert Hofstede, pothetical future is not necessarily an argument for the likelihood defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes [groups].” of its occurrence. Or its desirability... What can we say about the Less abstractly, a recent exploration