By Jason Lim
As I write this, there is a Blue House petition titled, "Reporting Blizzard's Atrocities." Blizzard is the maker of the popular game, "Diablo." Over 15,000 Korean citizens have signed onto the petition. Basically, the petition complains that millions of members have paid close to $50 each to be able to play the latest version of the game released on Sept. 21, but that they have been severely hampered in their enjoyment due to frequent server outages and random issues with their game progress being forcibly rolled back to some earlier status. The real outrage stems from the game company's lack of an official position on this matter. In short, the game players feel ignored and discriminated against.
So, a South Korean gamer uploaded a petition to the Korean president complaining about the actions of an American gaming company because he felt ignored by the customer service of said American company. It seems odd on the surface, but perfectly normal in this globally digitized world in which our everyday life boundaries are more and more defined by the digital space we live in and not only by the actual physical boundaries that make up our nation, state, city and local boundaries.
It is not odd, but there is one notable thing about this petition: it calls upon the power of a nation-state to wield influence over the actions of a "digital state." Ian Bremmer recently wrote a Foreign Affairs article titled, "The Technopolar Moment: How Digital Powers Will Reshape the Global Order," that provides a useful framework through which to process this incident.
Bremmer claims that large social media and internet technology companies represent a new breed of cohesive geopolitical influential blocs that rival the modern nation states that have defined our lives and international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia. "States have been the primary actors in global affairs for nearly 400 years. That is starting to change, as a handful of large technology companies rival them for geopolitical influence.
The aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot serves as the latest proof that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are no longer merely large companies; they have taken control of aspects of society, the economy, and national security that were long the exclusive preserve of the state. The same goes for Chinese technology companies, such as Alibaba, ByteDance, and Tencent. Nonstate actors are increasingly shaping geopolitics, with technology companies in the lead."
Bremmer's claims are not hyperbolic. As of this January, Facebook is leading digital nation building with 2.7 billion users, followed by YouTube and WhatsApp, with 2 billion users each. Just to take Facebook for example, this situation means that one company can shape what you see, how you interact, what you can post and share, and who you can reach out to. Your digital movements are being tracked by the company to further shape your future behavior with the rest of this digital nation.
Deplatforming from Facebook literally means a social death for those who use Facebook as their primary means of social engagement. With lockdowns and social distancing taking place during COVID-19, the digital world has gained primacy into how we engage with one another, giving more power to these social media and technology platforms in all aspects of our lives.
While alarm bells have been ringing over the consequences of such unchecked and unaccountable power, Bremmer points out that traditional nation states are having trouble developing an effective regulatory oversight scheme for these emerging digital state powers.
But it's not for the lack of trying. According to the Guardian, Australia is pushing for a law that will create an online privacy code for social media services, data brokers and other large online platforms operating in Australia. Other laws will force social media companies to be held liable if they don't take down allegedly defamatory material within 48 hours of receiving a notice from the eSafety commissioner, in addition to verifying users' ages, getting parental consent for children and ceasing the disclosure of personal information, if requested.
Similar attempts are happening in the EU. According to Reuters, "EU countries aim to agree on a common negotiating position on two sets of draft rules to curb the powers of U.S. tech giants on Nov. 25. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) sets out a list of dos and don'ts for online gatekeepers ― companies that control data and access to their platforms ― such as Amazon, Apple, Alphabet unit Google and Facebook. The Digital Services Act (DSA) requires the tech companies to do more to tackle illegal content on their online platforms. Violations can result in hefty fines."
Whether this situation will turn out to be the "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" still remains to be seen. Facebook's recent name change announcement to "Meta" and its pivot to creating a metaverse will only feed the fire. If every aspect of our lives can be experienced in a fully immersive 3-D world with sensory capability rivaling that of the physical world, and if one company can control every granular aspect of those experiences, who's the empire then?
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
 |
So, a South Korean gamer uploaded a petition to the Korean president complaining about the actions of an American gaming company because he felt ignored by the customer service of said American company. It seems odd on the surface, but perfectly normal in this globally digitized world in which our everyday life boundaries are more and more defined by the digital space we live in and not only by the actual physical boundaries that make up our nation, state, city and local boundaries.
It is not odd, but there is one notable thing about this petition: it calls upon the power of a nation-state to wield influence over the actions of a "digital state." Ian Bremmer recently wrote a Foreign Affairs article titled, "The Technopolar Moment: How Digital Powers Will Reshape the Global Order," that provides a useful framework through which to process this incident.
Bremmer claims that large social media and internet technology companies represent a new breed of cohesive geopolitical influential blocs that rival the modern nation states that have defined our lives and international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia. "States have been the primary actors in global affairs for nearly 400 years. That is starting to change, as a handful of large technology companies rival them for geopolitical influence.
The aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot serves as the latest proof that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are no longer merely large companies; they have taken control of aspects of society, the economy, and national security that were long the exclusive preserve of the state. The same goes for Chinese technology companies, such as Alibaba, ByteDance, and Tencent. Nonstate actors are increasingly shaping geopolitics, with technology companies in the lead."
Bremmer's claims are not hyperbolic. As of this January, Facebook is leading digital nation building with 2.7 billion users, followed by YouTube and WhatsApp, with 2 billion users each. Just to take Facebook for example, this situation means that one company can shape what you see, how you interact, what you can post and share, and who you can reach out to. Your digital movements are being tracked by the company to further shape your future behavior with the rest of this digital nation.
Deplatforming from Facebook literally means a social death for those who use Facebook as their primary means of social engagement. With lockdowns and social distancing taking place during COVID-19, the digital world has gained primacy into how we engage with one another, giving more power to these social media and technology platforms in all aspects of our lives.
While alarm bells have been ringing over the consequences of such unchecked and unaccountable power, Bremmer points out that traditional nation states are having trouble developing an effective regulatory oversight scheme for these emerging digital state powers.
But it's not for the lack of trying. According to the Guardian, Australia is pushing for a law that will create an online privacy code for social media services, data brokers and other large online platforms operating in Australia. Other laws will force social media companies to be held liable if they don't take down allegedly defamatory material within 48 hours of receiving a notice from the eSafety commissioner, in addition to verifying users' ages, getting parental consent for children and ceasing the disclosure of personal information, if requested.
Similar attempts are happening in the EU. According to Reuters, "EU countries aim to agree on a common negotiating position on two sets of draft rules to curb the powers of U.S. tech giants on Nov. 25. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) sets out a list of dos and don'ts for online gatekeepers ― companies that control data and access to their platforms ― such as Amazon, Apple, Alphabet unit Google and Facebook. The Digital Services Act (DSA) requires the tech companies to do more to tackle illegal content on their online platforms. Violations can result in hefty fines."
Whether this situation will turn out to be the "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" still remains to be seen. Facebook's recent name change announcement to "Meta" and its pivot to creating a metaverse will only feed the fire. If every aspect of our lives can be experienced in a fully immersive 3-D world with sensory capability rivaling that of the physical world, and if one company can control every granular aspect of those experiences, who's the empire then?
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
![[INTERVIEW] Actor Ko Kyoung-pyo explains why he doesn't obsess over lead roles](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/5dfecd3b148845758412eb8826adf928.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
