An interview with Erik Tuchtfeld
"Internet access is a basic human right."

In this interview, Erik Tuchtfeld sheds light on the unintended consequences of digital platforms, the pressing need for regulation to ensure inclusivity and safety, and D64's robust advocacy for a democratic organization of the digital public sphere.

In your observation, how have digital platforms inadvertently reinforced existing structural and institutional inequalities, and how can these unintended consequences be effectively addressed?

Digital platforms help address structural and institutional inequalities. Alternative communities are able to connect globally, democratic movements have gained momentum thanks to digital platforms, and the voice of dissidents from authoritarian regimes is heard around the world. At the same time, however, digital platforms have also created new problems. The concept of the digital divide is used to describe the inequality of access to information technologies. An individual who does not have a good Internet connection or does not speak English is at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to accessing the world's knowledge. The hegemony of English and English-speaking cultures also risks the disappearance of less dominant cultures. To counter these trends, investment in basic digital infrastructure is needed. Internet access is a basic human right. Smaller, regional, more diverse digital platforms must be supported as an alternative to the one-size-fits-all approach of Silicon Valley global social networks.

To what extent do you believe the state should regulate digital platforms to ensure inclusivity and safety, and what is the industry's stance on this issue?

Our public spaces should be regulated in a democratic manner. Provided we're talking about democratic states, state laws can serve as a starting point for regulating social platforms. This includes the enforcement of the prohibition of defamation of persons, of incitement to hatred and violence, and of death threats - which are attacks on human dignity. But this is not enough. Safety - and in particular inclusivity - is not just about the absence of violence. It requires a culture of communication characterized by trust, respect and appreciation, something that no state can prescribe. In liberal, democratic societies, the culture of communication must be created by the people, by civil society, not in a top-down approach by the government. At the moment, however, the regulatory void left by states is being filled not by the people who use the platforms, but by Big Tech oligarchs in Silicon Valley.

It is therefore up to state legislatures to establish procedural rules that facilitate democratic decision-making in the digital realm. This would even enable transnational online communities to self-govern their respective digital public spaces in a bottom-up manner. The industry is not generally opposed to government regulation, as it partly relieves them of the responsibility of finding the right solution to difficult questions on their own and raises the barrier to entry for potential new competitors. However, they have an interest in uniform, scalable rules for the design of their platforms, including the moderation of content. They are not interested in complex rules that respect the diversity of communities around the world.

What are the fields of activity of D64 in this regard?

D64 advocates for a democratic organization of the digital public space. We fight for the right to anonymity online, as it protects in particular members of vulnerable groups, and push back proposals of mass surveillance, such as the bulk data retention of IP addresses or the general monitoring of private communication for illegal content. One of the initiatives is public events including panels, and following and commenting on the legislative implementation of the European Union’s Digital Services Act in Germany.

More practically, we are testing and maintaining alternative platforms ourselves. For example, we run a Mastodon server - an open-source, federated microblogging service (a Twitter/X alternative) - for our members on d-64.social. We have also published an open-source proof of concept on how large organizations can easily implement decentralized verification mechanisms for their members' profiles, an important step in the fight against disinformation through impersonation on online platforms. While Mastodon is a public platform, we offer HumHub - an open-source social network - as a "clubhouse" for our members, an internal space for discussion, exchange and collaboration.