Connect with us

Politics

The Key Issues That Stand Between Us and the Future of the Internet – ReadWrite

Published

on

Nate Nead


You’ll find little pushback to the idea that the internet is an awesome tool that has permanently and fundamentally changed our society, culture, and technological potential. Today, anyone with an internet-connected device and a couple hours of free time can talk to someone across the world, tap into an archive of nearly infinite knowledge, and start a business from scratch. 

But like most techno-optimists, I can’t help but imagine what the world will be like when the internet evolves. Will we soon be working with download and upload speeds that make today’s standards seem like dial-up? Will we be accessing and enjoying content in ways that make virtual reality look antiquated? 

The futurist in me wants to imagine a world where Holodeck-like simulations are possible and internet accessibility is unfettered and universal. But the realist in me understands that there are a great many issues to sort out before we can take even a single step forward. 

What are the key logistical, ethical, and legal issues that stand between us and the future of the internet? 

Anonymity and Privacy 

Privacy is a complex and multifaceted topic. To what extent should an individual be granted privacy when it comes to browsing the internet? If we abandon the right to privacy, we lose access to some critical functions and opportunities; whistleblowers and victims of crimes will have no reliable outlet where they can speak out. And in oppressive government regimes, individuals will have practically no ability to communicate openly or organize. But if we solidify privacy rights and enable total anonymity in certain cases, we open the door to various criminal activities. Where do we draw the line? 

The problem is complicated by the fact that many corporations are harvesting consumer data at alarming rates. By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but it can lead to extreme corporate power and control. 

Communities and Accessibility 

Should we allow there to be “open” communities, where everyone is allowed to participate in discussions and post whatever content they want? If so, how do you handle inciting incidents that result in violence in the real world? Do we limit the types of content that can be shared or discussed, or limit the users allowed in these communities? If so, who’s allowed to make the rules? 

Questionable Content 

How do we handle the presence of questionable content on the internet? Pornography, racist comments, and bullying-like behavior are considered offensive by many and downright destructive in some cases. But should it be allowed on the web? If so, should it be restricted to certain platforms? How do we control accessibility? 

Encryption and “Dark” Web

Along similar lines, advances in encryption and the emergence of the “dark web” make it possible for almost anyone to skirt the rules of the mainstream internet. If we overly regulate and restrict activities on the mainstream internet, will we be adding fuel to the fire of these underground communities? How do we handle these types of websites? 

Monopolies and Corporate Power

In some ways, the internet has democratized entrepreneurship. By using WordPress, Webflow, and other web development services, anyone with a business plan or a good idea can start their own website from scratch and start making money. 

But the internet has also allowed powerful corporate entities to come to power. Google dominates the search engine market and is almost a practical necessity if you want to find anything on the web. Google has the power to change its search engine algorithm on a whim, controlling the types of content accessible to billions of people. Is it acceptable for Google to have this power? If not, how do we attempt to control or mitigate it? 

Moderation and Responsibility 

Many of these issues come with the added problem of figuring out moderation and responsibility. There are often spectrums, where both extremes are undesirable; for example, total anonymity and total lack of privacy both seem unacceptable to most people. Our goal is to figure out where to draw the line, but who is responsible for determining where that line is? Who gets to say when a piece of content or a website has crossed that line? 

The matter is even more complicated with certain types of websites and online interactions. Is Twitter responsible for every tweet posted on its platform? What about direct messages? 

Logistical Concerns

Of course, there are also some logistical concerns when it comes to the future of the internet. The end of Moore’s Law has taught us that we may be approaching the limits of our knowledge of physics; it’s getting harder and harder to keep making progress in the processing power of computer chips. It’s also getting harder and harder to innovate new concepts for the distribution and availability of internet access. 

There’s also an abundance of malware and cybercriminals eager to wreak havoc and make money, creating an arms race between security experts and wrongdoers. How do we develop a strong internet infrastructure that can resist such attacks? 

The Internet Is Imperfect 

No matter what, we need to accept that the internet – as well as any solutions we propose related to the internet – is imperfect. There are no solutions that magically make all the problems and ethical issues of the internet disappear in a way that makes everyone happy. Our mentality shouldn’t lead us to find problems and fix them, but rather to help us find compromises, middle grounds, and acceptable limits that allow us to continue making progress with minimal harm. 

The Stakes Are High

Here’s another important considering factor in this discussion: the stakes are high. Cyberthreats and internet-related issues aren’t just a threat to individuals. In some cases, they can be a threat to an entire nation, or all of human civilization. That may seem like an exaggeration, especially when I spent a good chunk of this article discussing how people can and should use social media. 

But the reality is we’ve entered a new era of warfare, where conventional weapons like guns and bombs have proven inefficient compared to cyberattacks, cyberespionage, and indeed, cyberwarfare overall. If an enemy can covertly tap into government networks, monitor and manipulate the population, and seize control of critical resources that are dependent on the infrastructure provided by the internet, it wouldn’t take much for them to cause significant damage – and potentially change the course of human history. 

The Pace of Change Is Fast

Adding to the scare factor is the fact that change happens quickly. In the span of 30 years, the internet went from being a novelty known only to tech geeks and insiders to a tool accessible to practically everyone at any time – even using mobile devices to tap into it. 

Policymakers are burdened by tradition, bureaucracy, and slow-moving processes that make it nearly impossible to respond to new threats and changing paradigms in a timely manner. This adds a wrinkle to the equation; even if we somehow figure out how to navigate these tough issues, will we be able to act quickly enough to make a difference? 

The World Is Complicated 

I don’t purport to have all the answers, or even a few of the answers. Instead, I’m mostly just asking important questions. To an extent, this is all we can really do at the moment. The world is a complicated place and the internet is a complicated subject of discussion. A person’s viewpoint on ethics and legal issues are going to be a byproduct of their personal values, beliefs, past experiences, and current priorities – and there aren’t many popular perspectives that are outright “wrong.” 

If we’re going to work together to build a better, more impressive, even more revolutionary internet, we need to be willing to confront these questions and address them with the complex discussions they deserve. Until then, our progress will be at least somewhat capped. 

Nate Nead

Nate Nead is the CEO & Managing Member of Nead, LLC, a consulting company that provides strategic advisory services across multiple disciplines including finance, marketing and software development. For over a decade Nate had provided strategic guidance on M&A, capital procurement, technology and marketing solutions for some of the most well-known online brands. He and his team advise Fortune 500 and SMB clients alike. The team is based in Seattle, Washington; El Paso, Texas and West Palm Beach, Florida.

Politics

Fintech Kennek raises $12.5M seed round to digitize lending

Published

on

Google eyed for $2 billion Anthropic deal after major Amazon play


London-based fintech startup Kennek has raised $12.5 million in seed funding to expand its lending operating system.

According to an Oct. 10 tech.eu report, the round was led by HV Capital and included participation from Dutch Founders Fund, AlbionVC, FFVC, Plug & Play Ventures, and Syndicate One. Kennek offers software-as-a-service tools to help non-bank lenders streamline their operations using open banking, open finance, and payments.

The platform aims to automate time-consuming manual tasks and consolidate fragmented data to simplify lending. Xavier De Pauw, founder of Kennek said:

“Until kennek, lenders had to devote countless hours to menial operational tasks and deal with jumbled and hard-coded data – which makes every other part of lending a headache. As former lenders ourselves, we lived and breathed these frustrations, and built kennek to make them a thing of the past.”

The company said the latest funding round was oversubscribed and closed quickly despite the challenging fundraising environment. The new capital will be used to expand Kennek’s engineering team and strengthen its market position in the UK while exploring expansion into other European markets. Barbod Namini, Partner at lead investor HV Capital, commented on the investment:

“Kennek has developed an ambitious and genuinely unique proposition which we think can be the foundation of the entire alternative lending space. […] It is a complicated market and a solution that brings together all information and stakeholders onto a single platform is highly compelling for both lenders & the ecosystem as a whole.”

The fintech lending space has grown rapidly in recent years, but many lenders still rely on legacy systems and manual processes that limit efficiency and scalability. Kennek aims to leverage open banking and data integration to provide lenders with a more streamlined, automated lending experience.

The seed funding will allow the London-based startup to continue developing its platform and expanding its team to meet demand from non-bank lenders looking to digitize operations. Kennek’s focus on the UK and Europe also comes amid rising adoption of open banking and open finance in the regions.

Featured Image Credit: Photo from Kennek.io; Thank you!

Radek Zielinski

Radek Zielinski is an experienced technology and financial journalist with a passion for cybersecurity and futurology.

Continue Reading

Politics

Fortune 500’s race for generative AI breakthroughs

Published

on

Deanna Ritchie


As excitement around generative AI grows, Fortune 500 companies, including Goldman Sachs, are carefully examining the possible applications of this technology. A recent survey of U.S. executives indicated that 60% believe generative AI will substantially impact their businesses in the long term. However, they anticipate a one to two-year timeframe before implementing their initial solutions. This optimism stems from the potential of generative AI to revolutionize various aspects of businesses, from enhancing customer experiences to optimizing internal processes. In the short term, companies will likely focus on pilot projects and experimentation, gradually integrating generative AI into their operations as they witness its positive influence on efficiency and profitability.

Goldman Sachs’ Cautious Approach to Implementing Generative AI

In a recent interview, Goldman Sachs CIO Marco Argenti revealed that the firm has not yet implemented any generative AI use cases. Instead, the company focuses on experimentation and setting high standards before adopting the technology. Argenti recognized the desire for outcomes in areas like developer and operational efficiency but emphasized ensuring precision before putting experimental AI use cases into production.

According to Argenti, striking the right balance between driving innovation and maintaining accuracy is crucial for successfully integrating generative AI within the firm. Goldman Sachs intends to continue exploring this emerging technology’s potential benefits and applications while diligently assessing risks to ensure it meets the company’s stringent quality standards.

One possible application for Goldman Sachs is in software development, where the company has observed a 20-40% productivity increase during its trials. The goal is for 1,000 developers to utilize generative AI tools by year’s end. However, Argenti emphasized that a well-defined expectation of return on investment is necessary before fully integrating generative AI into production.

To achieve this, the company plans to implement a systematic and strategic approach to adopting generative AI, ensuring that it complements and enhances the skills of its developers. Additionally, Goldman Sachs intends to evaluate the long-term impact of generative AI on their software development processes and the overall quality of the applications being developed.

Goldman Sachs’ approach to AI implementation goes beyond merely executing models. The firm has created a platform encompassing technical, legal, and compliance assessments to filter out improper content and keep track of all interactions. This comprehensive system ensures seamless integration of artificial intelligence in operations while adhering to regulatory standards and maintaining client confidentiality. Moreover, the platform continuously improves and adapts its algorithms, allowing Goldman Sachs to stay at the forefront of technology and offer its clients the most efficient and secure services.

Featured Image Credit: Photo by Google DeepMind; Pexels; Thank you!

Deanna Ritchie

Managing Editor at ReadWrite

Deanna is the Managing Editor at ReadWrite. Previously she worked as the Editor in Chief for Startup Grind and has over 20+ years of experience in content management and content development.

Continue Reading

Politics

UK seizes web3 opportunity simplifying crypto regulations

Published

on

Deanna Ritchie


As Web3 companies increasingly consider leaving the United States due to regulatory ambiguity, the United Kingdom must simplify its cryptocurrency regulations to attract these businesses. The conservative think tank Policy Exchange recently released a report detailing ten suggestions for improving Web3 regulation in the country. Among the recommendations are reducing liability for token holders in decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and encouraging the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to adopt alternative Know Your Customer (KYC) methodologies, such as digital identities and blockchain analytics tools. These suggestions aim to position the UK as a hub for Web3 innovation and attract blockchain-based businesses looking for a more conducive regulatory environment.

Streamlining Cryptocurrency Regulations for Innovation

To make it easier for emerging Web3 companies to navigate existing legal frameworks and contribute to the UK’s digital economy growth, the government must streamline cryptocurrency regulations and adopt forward-looking approaches. By making the regulatory landscape clear and straightforward, the UK can create an environment that fosters innovation, growth, and competitiveness in the global fintech industry.

The Policy Exchange report also recommends not weakening self-hosted wallets or treating proof-of-stake (PoS) services as financial services. This approach aims to protect the fundamental principles of decentralization and user autonomy while strongly emphasizing security and regulatory compliance. By doing so, the UK can nurture an environment that encourages innovation and the continued growth of blockchain technology.

Despite recent strict measures by UK authorities, such as His Majesty’s Treasury and the FCA, toward the digital assets sector, the proposed changes in the Policy Exchange report strive to make the UK a more attractive location for Web3 enterprises. By adopting these suggestions, the UK can demonstrate its commitment to fostering innovation in the rapidly evolving blockchain and cryptocurrency industries while ensuring a robust and transparent regulatory environment.

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrency regulations in various countries has prompted Web3 companies to explore alternative jurisdictions with more precise legal frameworks. As the United States grapples with regulatory ambiguity, the United Kingdom can position itself as a hub for Web3 innovation by simplifying and streamlining its cryptocurrency regulations.

Featured Image Credit: Photo by Jonathan Borba; Pexels; Thank you!

Deanna Ritchie

Managing Editor at ReadWrite

Deanna is the Managing Editor at ReadWrite. Previously she worked as the Editor in Chief for Startup Grind and has over 20+ years of experience in content management and content development.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2021 Seminole Press.