A European digital model based on values

Brussels – Economic freedom, absence of controls, very strong private investment, and a high-risk appetite are the factors that have driven, and continue to drive, the digital economy in the United States. On the other side of the world, in China, digitization is characterized by a centralized approach with strategic choices under public control. These are very different models that have so far enabled the two countries to consolidate world leadership in the sector. What about Europe? According to Mario Draghi, “it has largely missed out on the internet-driven digital revolution and the productivity gains it has brought (…),’ so much so that to date ‘Only four of the top 50 technology companies in the world are European.”

The former ECB president urges radical change with the ambition to ‘match the United States in terms of innovation’ and surpass it in education and lifelong learning opportunities.
Ambitions that are likely shareable; however, many experts and insiders argue that European peculiarities should not be lost. Among them is Ivana Bartoletti, who spent her career studying new technologies and is an expert in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and digital privacy. She received the Privacy Leader of the Year Award in 2022. The idea she lays out in her book — A Digital Union Based on European Values,’ published by FEPS in the Primer Series and presented yesterday in Brussels — is that European digitization must be based on its values.”

The values that unite Europeans remain fundamental, even more so today because adopting new technologies risks increasing gaps, inequalities, and prejudices,” Bartoletti says. “Moreover, we must debunk the myth of technological neutrality. Every technological tool reflects the intentions of its creator. There is nothing more political—meaning related to the fundamental choices that determine the design of a technological tool. This highlights the importance of political guidance in the management of technology.”

The European model is often juxtaposed with regulatory capacity. Gerard Rinse Oosterwijk, head of digital policy at FEPS, draws the boundaries: “The European Union has become a global regulator on technology. In recent years, the legislature enacted several regulations – GDPR, DMA, DSA, DGA, AIA – to increase the transparency and accountability of tech companies and counter their monopolistic tendencies.” However, overregulation hinders the growth of innovative companies with inconsistent and restrictive regulations, Draghi points out.

Bartoletti disagrees: “We need to debunk the misconception that regulation has stifled innovation in Europe, which is why we don’t have a Google, an Alibaba or an Amazon: this is too simplistic. There are many reasons why Europe has lagged behind large technology companies, including the role of the public and private sector, venture capital, and the ability of the private sector to take risks, which are significant elements in the United States. We may not be a copy of the US in Europe, but we still have great strength in R&D investment.”

According to the expert, the fact that Europe is emerging as the world’s top regulator is a great opportunity, especially for artificial intelligence and new technologies. “Being a super-regulator is not about blocking innovation, but ensuring that innovation is being developed with respect for fundamental human values and rights. The European approach considers the risks that technology can pose to fundamental rights. In Artificial intelligence, for example, Europe is moving toward regulation that takes into account these risks, rather than simply looking at the money invested in a model, as is the case in the United States.”

She points out again that technology is far from neutral: just one example suffices: “Thanks to artificial intelligence, it is possible to predict personalized care, or we can still make a blind person autonomous who can open a refrigerator and prepare lunch without any help. At the same time, however, a person waiting for a liver transplant may have it denied or postponed because an algorithm determines that it is not convenient enough. Clearly, there are ethical, but more importantly political issues, hence choice, in the design and ‘training’ of algorithms.”

This is where the big issue of accountability of decision-makers and, consequently, of trust in new technologies comes in. “We have to make sure that people trust these technologies, which means they must be transparent and safe. A key aspect of the European approach is that AI must be human-centered and respect fundamental rights, such as privacy.” One of the key points is to untether the data collected by large platforms, “rethink it as a public good and treat it accordingly,” Bartoletti says, meaning “make it available to smaller researchers and developers.” It will be crucial, however, to build more reliable and secure datasets. At the moment much of AI is trained on data collected in a non-transparent way, full of biases,” she warns.

In all this, “Europe has an extraordinary opportunity to shape the future of technology,” Bartoletti concludes. If the greater productivity of the United States and China related to the development and implementation of new technologies relies on the core values of the two countries—freedom on one side, control on the other—Europe has the opportunity to develop digitalization based on a vision rooted in human rights. “We have excellent universities and significant investment in research and development. We can find our way, and we can do it by protecting the rights and values that unite us as Europeans. It is what makes us special and what we must continue to build on.”