PERFECTING A MORE DIGITAL UNION: Ro Khanna's Dignity In A Digital Age

When you hear a member of Congress talking about the tech industry these days, there's a good chance it's in a negative context. Republicans rail against the companies that have enabled everyday citizens to project their voices with a freedom and scope that even presidents could not have matched just a couple decades ago. Democrats rhapsodize about dismantling some of America's biggest domestic job creators and most successful exporters. And that's just on Twitter.

They're also pitching bills like the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on last week, whose intended and unintended consequences include weakening security on iPhones, eliminating Amazon Prime's free two-day shipping, and making it harder for Google Search to steer users to small businesses using Google Maps, to name just a few.

But while some of America's most powerful lawmakers focus on cutting Big Tech down to size, how many of the major challenges we face, as a country and as part of the greater global community, can we solve without major technological activity and innovation? 

That's why Ro Khanna's perspective is valuable in this moment. A member of the House of Representatives (D - CA) since 2016, Khanna is one of just a handful of current Congresspeople who has experience working in the tech industry. In his important new book, Dignity In A Digital Age, he explores how the tech industry can work harder to ensure the benefits it produces are equitably distributed, while also more effectively minimizing disinformation, encroachments on privacy, and other negative outputs. 

In Dignity In A Digital Age, Khanna positions the tech industry as an economic engine that can revitalize huge swathes of the U.S. where construction, manufacturing, and other traditional industries are in decline. In contrast to many of his colleagues in Congress, Khanna occasionally even credits the virtues of bigness, noting that "large platforms have beneficial network effects and economies of scale." Additionally, Khanna believes the digital revolution is a force that can and should dignify and empower individual lives and, perhaps most ambitiously, "reduce the divisiveness and dysfunction of our contemporary democracy."

But Khanna is hardly an unabashed tech booster. While his focus in Dignity In A Digital Age is on reform and improvement, I do think one shortcoming of the book is how it under-acknowledges the many benefits that digital innovation and large global platforms in particular have delivered – and continue to deliver – to society. In the context of reform efforts, it's extremely important to accurately assess those benefits. That's because we need to fully understand what we can potentially lose as well as gain if we start limiting scale, slowing down innovation, and pre-emptively constraining future paths of development through the vast expansion of antitrust laws and other new precautionary regulatory regimes.

But while Khanna and I may have different opinions on how to most productively move forward, we share the belief that continued technological innovation is key to America's future; that the tech industry can do more to minimize negative outcomes while maximizing and broadening positive outcomes; and, finally, that we need productive discourse from informed and engaged leaders from both the government and the tech industry to make real progress. 

To this end, Dignity In A Digital Age is packed with ideas and policy proposals about how we can make "tech work for all of us." Primary to Khanna's vision is place-based policy-making, and the proposition that we should commit to creating new tech jobs in every part of America, not just large cities. "Anxious Americans can feel more secure if they can continue to develop the culture they inherited from their grandparents and parents where they live," he writes. "Digital technology allows these towns to come back without having to give up who they are."

But Khanna's viewpoint is not just geographically expansive. While the attorney/legislator in him presents scores of policy proposals over the course of Dignity In A Digital Age, the book, as its title foreshadows, is informed by a larger humanistic perspective. 

In Khanna's conception, the way to achieve "national excellence" is to re-envision freedom not just as "freedom from excessive government regulations and interference," but rather the "freedom to live up to one's potential." Or as he puts it at length, "The animating spirit behind many progressive policies is the aim of nurturing the freedom of every American to succeed. We want people to have health care so they can be free to pursue their dreams. We want them to have a quality education so they can be free to explore interesting jobs."

I've always viewed government as the necessary platform for creating and maintaining the conditions for productive markets and entrepreneurship. These include rule of law and freedom from corruption, public infrastructure, an educated workforce, and the social stability that facilitates long-term investment and growth.

So in the first major section of Khanna's book, where he addresses topics like how to expand the digital economy to all of the U.S., or how to make the tech industry more diverse and inclusive, I find many of the policies he proposes compelling. In one instance, he advocates for making computer science a default part of K-12 curriculums – a cause I've vigorously championed myself through my support of Code.org. In another instance, Khanna proposes giving favorable consideration to federal contract bids from companies that have 10 percent of a project’s professional workforce in rural communities. In a third, he suggests offering a capital gains tax credit to institutions that invest in nontraditional, Black- and Brown-run firms or those led by women. As someone who has spent a large part of my career building and investing in tech platforms designed to expand and broaden access to economic opportunity, like LinkedIn, Airbnb, and Kiva.org, I believe all of these are ideas worth pursuing on a legislative level. 

In the book's second section, Khanna explores how to regulate and redesign digital media so that democratic values, rather than user attention and data capture maximization, drive the digital age. "We need a recentering of Silicon Valley values," he writes, "so that companies embrace their dual responsibility, not simply to shareholders, but also as key stewards of the modern public sphere."

In partnership with Tim Berners-Lee, Khanna has created an Internet Bill of Rights with ten points to be used as guiding principles for legislation and private sector policies. These include the right to require opt-in consent for the use of one's data, to know how one's data is being used, to have one's data be portable, and to prevent unfair data discrimination. 

To a certain extent, Khanna proposes solutions that aim to create incentives for responsible behavior without drastically limiting or slowing down potential innovation. For example, instead of suggesting that we pre-emptively ban AI from being used in job-hiring contexts, he suggests we need "clear rules that impose liability on institutions that use personal data in discriminatory ways or that rely on algorithms that further disparities based on race, gender, or other demographic considerations."

But Khanna also goes further, in ways that suggest he favors a much more top-down approach to technological development than the "permissionless innovation" approach that led to breakthroughs we now consider essential like email, search engines, e-commerce, and so much more. For example, along with the "clear rules that impose liability" on institutions when their products and services cause harm to users in various ways, even if unintentionally, Khanna also suggests that "high-risk" AI systems, which he defines as any system that is "automating decision making about an activity that will have a significant impact on people’s lives," should be certified by the Federal Trade Commission.

But what gets defined as "significant" is potentially quite elastic here. And concentrating the power to determine America's technological future into a single federal agency staffed by unelected bureaucrats, the FTC, does not immediately strike me as a clear act of democratization. It also represents a major shift in philosophy from the one that allowed the Internet to flourish in the first place. Consider, for example, the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, which, in the formative days of the World Wide Web, advised against unnecessary government intervention and regulation, and noted that when government involvement was needed, that involvement should be predictable, minimalist, consistent, and simple. 

Now, however, we've got legislators introducing bills that would apply vague rules to some companies but not others, in ways that seem likely to increase uncertainty and inconsistency. 

In mapping out his own antitrust philosophy, Khanna suggests he wants to strike a balance between limiting the power of tech's biggest companies without necessarily dismantling them. But as he elaborates on multiple approaches to "rein in" Big Tech, including some that are analogous to provisions in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, he drifts toward a command-and-control mindset that won't necessarily serve America's best interests.  

Right now, the mantra among anti-tech reformers is that the biggest Big Tech platforms are using their power to thwart competition and the innovation that competition inspires. But if that's true, how do you explain the rise of Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and decentralized Web3 ecosystems that have the potential to radically disrupt today's established platforms? How did Zoom become the leading video-call platform when Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all competitors in this space too? What about the ascendance of TikTok? How come Google hasn't managed to dominate the autonomous vehicle market it pioneered more than a decade ago? If Facebook – now Meta – exerts unchecked control over the current tech market, why is it investing so much effort in upending the status quo by pursuing the new paradigm of the metaverse?

From my view as an investor who reviews hundreds of tech start-ups and scale-ups every year, the tech sector is not only not stagnant; it's incredibly vibrant. And with increasingly complex technologies like AI, robotics, augmented reality, virtual reality, and many others evolving at constantly accelerating rates, we're on the cusp of even greater innovation and competition – much of it global. 

In this context, creating productive, adaptive, and future-oriented regulatory regimes is crucial to maintaining America's long-term prosperity, security, and global standing. Indeed, if we want the U.S. to recapture a greater share of manufacturing, should we really be focusing so much effort on constraining and even breaking up the companies investing billions of dollars into AI and robotics, the very technologies we absolutely must incorporate more fully to stay globally competitive in the manufacturing industry? If we recognize that robust exports are key to America's economic success, why deliberately hobble companies like Alphabet, Apple, and Facebook, and Microsoft, all of which derive more than half their revenues from abroad?

Finally, if maximizing competition and innovation is truly the goal here, how likely are we to achieve that by passing legislation that gives federal lawmakers and bureaucrats new powers to decide which specific companies are allowed to develop which specific new kinds of products and services?

More broadly, how will this approach play out as the technologies involved grow increasingly complex? Do we really want members of Congress who've been entrenched on Capitol Hill for decades – talk about competition and innovation! – moonlighting as AI product managers?

Instead of counting on legislators to effectively micro-manage America's technological innovation and progress, we should instead be focusing on the broad societal outcomes we'd like to achieve. In my mind, an alternative to the highly prescriptive, rules-based regulatory regimes that federal legislators now routinely propose in their quest to control Big Tech involves developing a range of metrics and standards that encapsulate greater societal goals and indications of societal well-being. Think of it as something roughly akin to air quality standards or fuel economy standards. Then, once those standards have been defined, the platforms themselves could determine how best to achieve these targets, with various disincentives kicking in if periodic third-party audits show these targets aren't being met.

Along with preserving more space for experimentation, innovation, and progress, such open-ended approaches could also help reframe how we think about our need to productively regulate the industry that's so central to our future well-being and prosperity. The end goal is to create better products and outcomes for users and society at large, but right now, federal legislators and other tech critics often seem less focused on that goal and more concerned with cutting Big Tech down to size for its shortcomings and perceived failures.

Indeed, despite his deep knowledge and appreciation for tech's benefits, Khanna himself tends toward such thinking in Dignity in A Digital Age. For example, he decries the negative impacts that Big Tech platforms have had on local newspapers, local retail, and local artists, and suggests that various taxes on digital revenue could help subsidize these sectors. At the same time, he exclaims that so many small businesses rely so much on platforms like Amazon, Facebook, and Google for various services that these platforms should all be classified as "essential facilities" that must allow any other company to utilize them "unless it is obvious that doing so would harm consumers." In other words, when he sees Big Tech platforms eliminating jobs, he wants to penalize them. When he sees Big Tech platforms creating jobs, he wants to restrict their power to manage their own businesses. 

And when Khanna describes tech's impact on local economies, small businesses, and the people whose livelihoods depend on these institutions, he literally never mentions companies like Etsy, Shopify, Square, Ebay, Airbnb, TikTok, Twitch, Patreon, Opensea, and Soundcloud, to name just some of the platforms that create new economic opportunities that can be pursued anywhere, not just big coastal cities.

Nor does he note how these and other platforms, like YouTube, Instagram, and the Apple app store, don't just create new ways to make money – but also new ways to pursue the work that people find most meaningful to themselves. Taking Root, a report published by the Re:create Coalition, an advocacy organization focused on copyright issues, found that nearly 17 million Americans earned a collective $6.8 billion in 2017 posting content on just nine platforms, with YouTube accounting for $4 billion of those earnings, Etsy $1.4 billion, Instagram $460 million, and Amazon Publishing $220 million. While a relatively small number of top earners account for the majority of those earnings, there's also data that suggests that there is a growing "middle-class" in this sector too. According to Stripe, the payments processor, "the number of creators earning a living wage (>$69K/year) has increased 41% year-over-year."

Of course, the Creator Economy is still in its early stages, but it's growing fast, and innovating fast, and the thousands of companies competing in this space – including startups and well-established global platforms alike – are creating both new jobs today, and also more importantly, the jobs of the future. And these jobs, I would add, which are both decentralized and typically tied to individual passions, fit perfectly into Khanna's vision of an America that offers widespread opportunity and the "freedom to live up to one's potential."

So while Khanna presents an inspiring vision for how technology can and should shape America's future, I find it somewhat incongruous that a book that is fundamentally about democratic values and the decentralization of power keeps casting the tech industry as the institution that must be reformed and the government as the institution that should reform it. 

This holds true not just for economic matters, but also civic ones. After all, it's tech, not government, which has created the platforms and services that have attracted billions of users in a very short time because of the way they empower and engage users. Of course, as Khanna rightly notes, liking and sharing social media posts are not sufficient endpoints for democratic expression. The tech industry should aspire to more, and the aspirations Khanna envisions in this realm are the right ones: facilitating more robust, civil and accessible democratic participation by citizens, in both private and public realms. 

But if the tech industry has done a sub-optimal job of creating platforms for substantive and civic engagement, it is still light years ahead of what the government has done. Voter rates are increasing in the digital age because of the engagement platforms like Facebook and Twitter facilitate. Elected officials have more direct channels of communication with citizens. Khanna himself acknowledges how the town halls he's held on Facebook Live "have allowed many of his constituents to participate who wouldn’t normally be able to join in person."

So when Khanna elaborates on the need to "build civic and public institutions for deliberation that are inclusive and facilitate constructive discussion," you'd think he might pitch it as an opportunity for the tech industry and government to work together productively and collaboratively, under less antagonistic conditions. After all, as Khanna notes, creating such institutions represents "the hardest challenge facing modern democracy," and the federal government doesn't exactly have a reputation for creating well-designed apps and highly functional websites. 

Elsewhere in Dignity in A Digital Age, Khanna explains why it's necessary to engage various key stakeholders in a truly collaborative way. "We have little hope of passing bold policies if we are making no effort to understand the values and aspirations of the nearly 74 million voters who supported President Trump," he notes in one chapter. In another, he exclaims how crucial it is to discuss policies with the nation's farmers, "rather than simply dictating terms to them."

 Applying this same perspective more fully to the tech industry, I believe, is how we as a country can progress most productively on the challenges we face. As it is, the dominant frame of mind on Capitol Hill these days is to see the tech industry as a mostly errant force that must be admonished, corrected, and constrained, rather than a valuable national asset that can be enhanced even more through the right kinds of policies and public-private partnerships.

 Along with the massive positive impact technology and the tech industry have had on our society and the world, we've also seen negative consequences too. When major change occurs, there always is. Continuing progress necessitates fixing those downsides while amplifying and continuing the upsides. And I believe the best opportunities are still in the future. Fixing climate change? Our best shot now lies in developing new technologies for carbon capture and clean energy through sustainable innovation driven by capitalism. Expanding economic justice? New industries and jobs that offer modern opportunities to a broad swathe of Americans can be ours if we invest in the technologies that will make us competitive. Improving medical outcomes? Through technologies like synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and mobile delivery, the tech industry is poised to deliver major healthcare advances.  

In short, technology plays an essential role in every solution to every major social problem we face. The questions are how we form the right incentive ecosystem and the right public-private partnerships. In looking at the modern American system – from universities to company-driven innovation to early government investment in pivotal technologies like the Internet and GPS – we have created the modern world. We should amplify the elements that have worked, while modifying the negative scale side-effects.  

 Of course, this is Khanna's endeavor too, and it's why I think Dignity In A Digital Age is such an important book. While I don't agree with every idea Khanna proposes in it, it is, in my perspective, a well-informed and morally profound effort to explain how central today's rapidly developing technologies are to American progress and prosperity. He understands the federal government should substantially increase its investments in AI development to stay competitive with China. He recognizes how important it is to invest more public resources in worker training and placement programs, to equip American citizens for success in a new technologically driven era. He advocates for "the type of commitment we had in the Apollo era of the space race with the Soviets" when it comes to creating national technological infrastructure for the digital economy. So I hope that Dignity In A Digital Age is read widely, especially by technologists and other lawmakers. And I deeply appreciate Khanna's commitment to push this discourse forward in productive and necessary ways.