IN FOCUS
2020. 1st Issue ISSN 2677-111X
Current trends
Challenges & Solutions
Prospective hazards and potentials
Tech Companies—The New Sovereigns?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 6 Welcoming Words Words
55
Introduction 6 Introduction 6 Keeping Tabs onJudit Multinationals: The Next Interview with Varga, Homework for theofEU and Hungary— Minister of Justice Hungary 11 Interview with Juditup Varga, Justice Small Fish Catching withMinister the Big of Ones?: of Chances Hungary of Hungarian 11 The Small Fish Catching up withMarket— the Big Ones?: Innovation in the Global The Chances of Hungarian Innovation —Interview with Gábor Bojár, in the Global Market—Interview founder of Graphisoft and Gábor Bojár, founder of Graphisoft thewith Aquincum Institute of Technology 18 and the Aquincum Institute of Technology 18
Innovation 28 Innovation 28 The Origins of Innovation Frenzy The Origins of Innovation Frenzy 30 Hacker Culture and Open Source Hacker Source or Tech Giants or TechCulture Giants and andOpen Patent Protection— and Patent Protection—Where Real —Where Does Real Innovation Does Come From? 34 Innovation Come From? 34 Utopian Aspirations and Dystopian Utopian AspirationsNew and Dystopian Fears Concerning Media 40 Concerning New Media 40 BigFears Companies: How Their Regulation Big How Their Regulation CanCompanies: Help Innovation 48 Can Help Innovation 48 Battleground Banking—An Epic Battle Battleground Battle Where Only Banking—An One Thing IsEpic Certain: Where OnlyWill OneWin Thing Is Certain: That Clients 54 That Clients Will Win 54
States strikes 9090 States Strike Back What to toDo Dowith withFacebook Facebook 9292 What SettingaaNew NewPace—Chinese Pace—Chinese Tech Companies Setting Tech Companies and Their State 100 and TheirConnection Connection to to the the State 100 JapanvsvsSouth SouthKorea—When Korea—When Trade Interests Japan Trade Interests Collide with 106 Collide withState StateInterests Interests 106
7 Survillance on Steroids Surveillance Goodor orBad?—China’s Bad?—China’s Social Credit System Good Social Credit System Online Gatekeepers and Online Gatekeepers and the Future (and Present) theofFuture (and Present) the Democratic Public Sphere of the Democratic Public Caught in a Web—How CanSphere Legislation Help Us Caught in aPrivate Web—How Get Our Life BackCan from Social Media? Legislation Usas the New Sovereign? States or TechHelp Giants Get Our Private Life Back from Social Media? 8 States or tech giants as the new sovereign?
110 110 112 112 119 119 125 135 125 135
Antall József Knowledge Centre 138 About AJKC 138 8 Our Releases 140 Antall József Knowledge Centre 138 About AJKC 138 9 Releases Our 140 Guest Authors 142 Authors 142 Authors of the AJKC 144 Guest Authors 142 References of Pictures and Used Data 146 Authors of AJKC 144
9 10 New Old ways New–Old City States Ways of the Future— City StatesModel of the Future—A Global Model A Global or Unique Examples? or Unique Examples? Modern Reality? ChristianThalassocracy—Myth Ethics and Big Techor Giants— Christian Ethics and Big Tech Giants—A World A World Turned Upside Down, with Potentials Turned Upside Down, with Potentials The Neomedievalist Approach to Big Corporations
58 58 60 6460 64 68 7468 74
think.BDPST 2020 78 think.BDPST Conference 78 think.BDPST 2020—The Fifth Strategic Strategic Conference of Hungary Conference of Hungary in Pursuit of Innovation 8080 in Pursuit of Innovation Innovation—The History of think.BDPST, Expo,Start-Up and Youngand Leaders’ Forum 82 of Start-Up think.BDPST, Innovation Corner, and Young Leaders’ Forum 82 84 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS WELCOMING WORDS
Next Issue of Pictures and Used Data References In Focus:
162 146 150
11 Next Issue
150
WELCOMING WORDS
Dear Readers, First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the specialists who contributed to this issue of In Focus magazine and all the participants who will come to the fifth think.BDPST conference. present issue of our our magazine magazine is is related related The present biggest annual annual conference conference of the the main main to the biggest organiser, the Antall Antall József József Knowledge Knowledge Centre, Centre, organiser, provides a forum forum for for various various actors actors from from which provides broader region, region, and the the global global Hungary, the broader thereby also also creating a bridge hubs ofofinnovation, innovation, thereby creating a between them. them. bridge between Technological advancements Technological advancements dictate dictate such such aa is hard hard for for humankind humankind to to keep keep up. up. pace that it is new yesterday yesterday might might be be considered considered What was new obsolete two weeks from its emergence. Providing obsolete two weeks from its emergence. answers to answers challengestoof challenges the environment, IT Providing of the specialists and ITscientists createand products and environment, specialists scientists innovative solutionsand at such an accelerated pace create products innovative solutions at that social sciences pace and legislation sciences that socialoftentimes such an accelerated cannot follow suit. Therefore, the digital and legislation oftentimes cannot followdivide suit. is expandingthebetween younger and older Therefore, digital the divide is expanding generations the different areas of social between theand younger and older generations sciences. We canareas ask of ourselves the following and the different social sciences. We questions: Is the newthe necessarily and safe? can ask ourselves followinggood questions: Is Do we grant too muchgood room and for giant tech the new necessarily safe? Dofirms we to access private What tools are to at grant too our much roomspace? for giant tech firms the disposal a modern “smart” state to answer access our of private space? What tools are at thesedisposal questions? is the limit beyond which the of What a modern “smart” state to we are nothese longerquestions? willing to sacrifi ce our personal answer What is the limit success for the sake general good and the beyond which we of aretheno longer willing to public? Naturally, theresuccess are negative as sake well as sacrifice our personal for the of positive aspects to every thus, it isNaturally, essential the general good and issue, the public? to findare a balance pros andaspects cons in there negativebetween as well the as positive order to be ablethus, to better grasp the tochanges to every issue, it is essential find a
balance between the pros and cons in order to be able to better grasp the changes taking place around us. The purpose of this In Focus issue, as well as think.BDPST, is to find such a balance and present it to an interested and attuned audience. Finding the desired balance is much easier, of course, if we follow a role model. The Republic of Singapore is at the forefront of digitalisation, while Central Europe, or the whole of Europe, for that matter, seems to be lagging behind. According to the Global Innovation Index 2019, Singapore is the eighth most innovative nation in the world and the taking us. to, Theand purpose of this In first in place Asia. around Listening learning from, Focus issue,ofashow well this as think.BDPST, to find the story once poor iscountry such a balance andstate present to an interested became a wealthy and itone of the global and attuned audience. all the while building on centres of innovation, Enjoy the magazine, and I hope to see all of you the knowledge acquired, is an experience at think.BDPST on 1–2 October. integral to our 2020 understanding and creation of such a balance. Veronikato Antall-Horváth That is why I am very proud welcome Singapore as the guest country ofDeputy this Director year’s Antall József Knowledge Centre conference.
WELCOMING WORDS
5
KEEPING TABS ON MULTINATIONALS: THE NEXT HOMEWORK FOR THE EU AND HUNGARYINTERVIEW WITH JUDIT VARGA, MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF HUNGARY Zsombor Szabolcs Pál, February 2020, Budapest
This summer, on a panel at Sziget Festival, you promised to set up a technological working group to draw up legislation on tech companies. What are the latest developments on this topic, and what is to be expected in the coming months? The question whether we will be able to control technology or whether technology will dominate our lives, does no longer belong to the realm of fantasy. Social media not only collects and analyses our personal data and our habits but also influences them. A lot of experience has accumulated in recent years with regard to global online activities that are not related to specific countries and to their regulatory background. This new experience calls for the revision of the regulations. That is
why I thought it necessary to review these issues. As promised, the Ministry of Justice initially set up the Digital Freedom Working Group (DSZM) to make the operation of transnational technology companies transparent. We named the working group “Digital Freedom” because we want the most important democratic core values to be reflected in the operation of such companies. Apart from transparency, these core values include accountability and the abolition of the predominant liberal ideological censorship in order to enable freedom of expression in the digital space, regardless of wealth, colour, gender, religion, or political affiliation. We want to ensure that, while privacy is protected, freedom of expression is not compromised. DSZM’s investigation includes the entire online space, covering any activity on any interface. With the help of the relevant state authorities, we have summarised the issues that emerged in a White Paper. We have created a website where we published this White Paper and where interested citizens may make comments to it. We also make the minutes of the DSZM’s thematic meetings available here and provide an opportunity for citizens to respond to the results. We are organising an international conference in May called “Freedom of Expression in the Era of Digitalization” to discuss each topic in depth. What are the main fields this working group is focussing on, and what is the number-one priority on your agenda? We want to look at the law enforcement practices of websites, since it is not clear and transparent how the operators of social network sites deal and process data related to users, nor the way in which statements of individuals are reviewed. INTRODUCTION
11
THE BASIC PROBLEM WITH FAKE NEWS IS THAT EVEN ITS CONCEPT HAS NOT YET BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS NO DECISION ON WHETHER ONLY INFORMATION FROM EXTERNAL OR EVEN FROM INTERNAL SOURCES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FAKE NEWS. The White Paper identified the following issues: freedom of expression, protection of privacy, data protection, media regulation, taxation, copyright, criminal justice enforcement, child protection, and the digital sovereignty of tech companies. Why do you think it is a relevant topic today? Information sharing is increasingly shifting from traditional communication channels to virtual interfaces. As long as social media is politically neutral, the risk of abuse is low. The situation immediately becomes alarming, however, when social media intentionally intervenes in the private life of citizens, which we see nowadays on several occasions. In addition to the personal information we knowingly share (name, date of birth, education), social media stores all important information about us based on our shares and likes: our party 12
INTRODUCTION
membership, our organisational affiliations, our family status, our citizenship, our income range. To make matters worse, tech giants can release our digital personal information en masse, even if by negligence. A telling example is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, when the political consulting firm had unauthorised access to the personal information of 87 million Facebook users and the psychological profiles generated by their activities. In addition to our basic information, the algorithms generated by our online activities make it easy for particular social media companies to determine who are politically active and who are uncertain in their preference. The algorithms constantly monitor how users respond to content, and learn more about their preferences. Each time a person or page you know or follow publishes new content, the algorithms decide whether or not it should be displayed to you. Since algorithms are difficult to understand for an average person, users are often unaware of the criteria by which their newsfeed is compiled. This can also have serious consequences if a tech company decides to interfere in elections. The danger lies not only in mobilising insecure voters but also in misusing information to deliberately manipulate voters’ political decisions with “random” content in newsfeeds. At the same time, content providers are free to decide where the limits of freedom of expression lie. So the question arises: Who watches the watchers, that is, who controls the big companies operating social media platforms? Do you intend to deal with fake news? How should they be curbed without risking that the legislation on this matter may be abused by a nefarious actor in the future? There is no uniform regulation on fake news either at EU level or in Hungary. In the EU, the issue of fake news came to the forefront at the time of the 2018 European Parliament elections. In order not to influence the elections, the European Commission adopted a package on the basis of which member states set up their working groups on fake news. After the elections, these groups generally merged with governmental centres dealing with hybrid threats. These centres are also responsible for tracking fake news endangering
the internal security of the state and for raising awareness of specific issues in general and also among professional target groups. As far as fake news is concerned, the centres mainly focus on spreading information, so they do not censor content or delete anything from the internet. The basic problem also with fake news is that even its concept has not yet been clearly defined. For example, there is no decision on whether only information from external or even from internal sources would be considered as fake news. In other words, what happens when a member state spreads fake news about another member state? Is it possible for the Commission to intervene, to delete such content from social media by following the rules of the Code of Conduct or only if the fake news originates from a third country outside the EU? Member states often do not want to decide what is true and what is fake news, what may be considered a reliable source and what may not; they rely on external sources, fact-checking sites, or NGOs. For the time being, therefore, social media is governed by its own rules. The European Commission has developed the abovementioned Code of Conduct which online organisations can voluntarily observe. Where is the boundary between freedom of speech and what tech companies can display on their services? I think that, as in most cases, even here we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Even in the traditional press, freedom of speech has its established limitations. These can also be customised to social media. However, there are two aspects to this issue: copyright and moral, ethical considerations. As far as copyright is concerned, I believe that the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive will adequately address this issue. In principle, the use of copyrighted works is subject to licensing, which entails the obligation to pay royalties. The Directive obliges member states to support creators of both traditional works and creative derivative works (such as walkthroughs, parody dubs, montages, memes) as follows. Content providers are required to obtain a license to use the content uploaded by users and to distribute it to the public. However, if
the content distributor proves to have done everything in its power to obtain the license but has not succeeded, it is obliged to filter content, with some exceptions including quotes, criticism, reviews, parody, etc. For these exceptions, service providers have to set up an effective and fast redress mechanism where users can indicate that they disagree with the removal of the content they have uploaded. Thus, decisions concerning the censoring or removal of uploaded content must be subject to human review, and legal disputes must ultimately be resolved at court. Moral considerations are much harder to grasp. Here, both the rules of criminal law and the ethics of the written press should apply. Of course, it should not be possible to display hateful content; however, in our experience, social media, which represent largely left-liberal values, interpret the terms too freely and even consider the expression of conservative–Christian national ideology as extremist. By way of an example, according to Facebook, nationalism, separatism, and white supremacy overlap to such an extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish between them. A Munich court ruled in January this year that, by deleting an entry citing Viktor Orbán and removing the related profile, Facebook had gone too far, as the post was non-offensive and, thus, subject to free expression. Still, in our country, we regularly encounter cases where right-wing journalists are suspended from social media sites or content is deleted without further explanation. Is a small sovereign state powerful enough to solve all these problems? Are you looking for partners in Europe, Brussels, or worldwide? In this respect, I follow the principle of “think globally, act locally.” Of course, the EU level is important because, for example, even if a giant company withdrew services from certain member states because of the digital tax, it would probably not be in its interest to do so on a European scale. The EU represents such a large market and such a strong economic interest that it may constitute a more effective means of exerting pressure. At this year’s summit in Davos, the issue was already brought to the table by the Americans and the French, who are the primary advocates INTRODUCTION
13
of taxing GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon). For the time being, I believe that the French would postpone the introduction of the tax, while the Americans would suspend the imposition of penalty tariffs in return. Earlier, however, EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “It is not for Europe to adapt to GAFA but for them to adapt to Europe. That’s how things are going to happen now.” So far, it seems that this is a very complex issue, the tax aspect of which is only one of the many regulatory areas. Of course, we will determine which country’s regulations are closest to the Hungarian interests and look for allies accordingly. This is why we are organising an international conference where we will have the opportunity to personally consult experts from around the world. Do you view the present European context opportune for promoting the Hungarian plans or having an impact on EU legislation? Yes, I do. Each revision gives us the opportunity to pursue our interests when renegotiating the terms. This is especially true now in competition law. It seems that the whole of Europe is interested in this issue. For many decades, competition law has not seen such a strong reflection that the digital economy has generated. In the European Union, governments and competition authorities have been demanding revisions of the current rules, starting with the German–French–Italian–Polish manifestos or the joint memorandum of the Benelux competition authorities. There is a general fear that competition law is too slow and cumbersome to keep up with large technology companies and prevent them from further increasing their advantage in market competition, for example, by killer acquisitions and extorting business conditions disadvantageous to the others. We also see internet content providers gaining an unfair advantage and paying significantly less tax than what their economic and political role would warrant. Europe wants to redress this injustice, but we have not really figured out the methods. However, we need to address the issue now so that we can assert Hungary’s interests in the final regulation. Equally important is the issue of data protection, which the average consumer is increasingly aware 14
INTRODUCTION
of. Everyone experiences first-hand that they have no practical influence over who may use their personal information and for what purposes. In my opinion, EU copyright legislation is going in the right direction. The DSM Directive ensures harmony between the parties, effectively seeking to establish the responsibility and to reduce the hegemony of online content providers. We would also like to take steps, however, in all the other matters in order to clarify the Hungarian position as soon as possible, which we can successfully represent internationally. If we do so, we may be able to influence European legislation. What do you think about the taxation of tech companies? Hungary is committed to the fair taxation of large tech companies, but the way forward would be to work out a comprehensive solution based on international consensus. Until it is reached within the OECD, we might be able to work with a transitional solution which might also give impetus to the work of the OECD. However, in the long run, we would not in any way consider a corporate tax solution solely applicable in the EU member states to be beneficial, as it would risk losing all the economic activities of the companies concerned within the EU. The Hungarian advertising tax is a particularly important example in this regard: it is noteworthy that the Union is currently working to introduce a digital service tax very similar to our advertising tax which the Juncker Commission suspended on a discriminatory and political basis, saying that it was regarded as state subsidy incompatible with the internal market. The Court of Justice of the European Union, however, annulled the Commission’s decision to that effect. We hope that the European Court of Justice will also have a favourable ruling at the end of the year, stating that revenue-based, staggered progressive taxes are in line with EU law. What do you think of the EU’s recent legislation on tech companies, and how do you relate to them (e.g., DSM, GDPR)? We have already briefly discussed the DSM Directive and taxation. In terms of copyright, it is also important that the artists (authors) it aims to protect have suffered the hegemony of tech
giants since the advent of these market players. Most tech giants are regarded as intermediary service providers, so they only have limited liability, while they generate significant amounts of revenue from making the uploaded content available instead of the authors. The DSM Directive aims, among others, to eliminate this inequality by enforcing the liability of tech giants, removing it from the protection of e-commerce provisions, and creating a more equitable share of corporate revenues for authors, thus breaking the hegemony of tech giants. In December 2019, a social consultation was carried out regarding the transposition of the two copyright directives, the DSM and the SatCab Directives, with the coordination of the Ministry of Justice and the participation of the National Intellectual Property Office. During the consultation, we discussed the specific provisions of the Directives. Almost all interest groups and major market actors participated in the workshops. We are currently processing the comments and suggestions raised during the consultation. The supremacy of data in our society is well illustrated by the fact that data protection is no longer considered in isolation but also in the context of other branches of law. This is inevitable, since we now live in a so-called data-driven economy. Therefore, how companies handle and collect our data has economic significance and can be evaluated not only from a data protection but also from a competition law aspect. Such was the case with Facebook’s competition proceedings before the German competition authority (BKartA). BKartA found that Facebook, a dominant company in the social media market with its 95% market share, abused its market power by forcing users to accept terms that allowed the company to link data collected on other services in its portfolio with the data collected on Facebook profiles. In digital markets, it is often the case that a privacy breach can also be considered as an uncompetitive behaviour. BKartA confirmed that by collecting data that was not verifiable under the GDPR—which constitutes a privacy breach—Facebook was enforcing unfair contract terms, which constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.
EDUCATION IS ALSO IMPORTANT IN TRAINING RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS WHO CAN EQUALLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD, USEFUL AND HARMFUL. HENCE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO AVOID BEING MANIPULATED BY UNKNOWN ALGORITHMS. The Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) has ruled against Google that it misled consumers through non-GDPR compliant information— which is a privacy breach—and, thereby, Google also violated competition law. The HCA has also imposed the highest fine so far of HUF 1.2 billion on one of the Big Four, Facebook. The competition authority has virtually reaffirmed the principle that if you do not seem to be paying for a service, you yourself are the service: on 6 December 2019, the HCA ruled that Facebook had misled consumers by promoting its service as free of charge. Although consumers did not have to pay a fee for using the service, they generated profit for the company with their user activity and data and, thus, paid for the service. Do you think that EU’s competitiveness can be restored by legal means, and if yes, how? A common characteristic of giant tech companies is that their service portfolio is extremely wide and INTRODUCTION
15
HUNGARY IS COMMITTED TO THE FAIR TAXATION OF LARGE TECH COMPANIES, BUT THE WAY FORWARD WOULD BE TO WORK OUT A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS. interconnected, which renders them unavoidable in the virtual world, and, also, that they have virtually infinite financial resources. From a competition law perspective, it is important that these companies primarily operate in so-called digital markets. Digital markets work differently from “traditional” material commodity markets because the value of the service is primarily reflected in the number of users on the platform (the so-called network effect): the more people use it, and the more data there is, the greater the market power of the company is, operating the platform. Therefore, companies that have been on the market for a long time and/or are wellknown have a competitive advantage over other new entrants. The EU should deal with this competitive situation. It would be premature to identify regulatory directions, but currently the following options are taking shape: a) treating social media as traditional mass media; b) splitting tech giants by means of US-originated antitrust measures; c) extending the territorial scope and constitutional regulations of nation states to cover social media activities; d) taking firmer legal action against censors to 16
INTRODUCTION
enforce the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and opinion; e) imposing a GAFA-tax; and f) creating a European, or perhaps a national, version of social media—although its popularity is questionable. The working group will also explore how to address the challenges posed by tech giants on a national level in case the EU is unable to respond to them in a timely and effective manner. In today’s globalised world, is it possible to regulate big companies at all, even on an EU level? There have also been attempts by, for example, Margrethe Vestager, but they have borne little fruit so far. What should be done differently? To date, tech giants have been exempt from control for two reasons. First, in their interpretation, they cannot be considered content providers because they only act as content distributors and, thus, in theory, do not engage in political activities. Data is viewed as a commodity that they do not produce. Large companies, furthermore, are subject to the principle of free movement of goods, which is one of the four freedoms in the EU. Second, national rules are area based, while tech giants are not confined to geographical space. As virtual companies move beyond the boundaries and scopes of responsibility delineated by national sovereignty, they act in an exclusive manner in their internal regulations. Apparently, they are trying to get rid of content control, leaving the task to companies with vague ownership background, who employ independent external fact checkers to censor content. This puts online media in line with traditional content providers, since they also select what they publish and who they prefer. If this is the case, however, they should also conform to the same rules without exception. Ms Vestager has acted out against tech companies very vehemently, but these procedures have been progressing extremely slowly: in the case of Google Search, an infringement case submitted in 2006 was only investigated in 2016, and a decision was made only in 2019. Today, legal application is lagging far behind the development of digital markets. It is true that heavy fines have been
imposed, but they have not beenApplication able to prevent prevent consumer damages. and consumer damages. and enforcement must beApplication accelerated inenforcement order to be must beprovide accelerated in order to be for able to provide able to effective protection consumers. effective for consumers. I find theprotection announcement by the UK Department the announcement by the Department forI find Culture also interesting thatUK social media for Culture will alsobeinteresting thatresponsible social media executives held legally for executives will be legallyway responsible for harmful content in held the same as financial harmful in “concentrate the same way financial directors content in order to theiras minds. directors in order to “concentrate their minds. Is it an apodictic reality that our citizens will Is an apodictic our citizens beitbetter off with reality all this that regulation? Afterwill all, be better allpossibilities this regulation? After all, it can leadoff to with fewer and services it can lead to fewer online. How couldpossibilities you explainand theservices future online. you voter? explainMany the future benefitsHow to ancould average might benefits to itan voter? Many might doubt that is average the state’s responsibility to doubt it is the state’sand responsibility to protectthat citizens directly, would prefer protect and would prefer the use citizens of more directly, indirect ways, like making the useinofimproving more indirect ways, like making strides people’s consciousness strides in improving people’s consciousness through, for instance, better education. through, foryou instance, better What would answer to that? education. What would you answer to that? In the early 2000s, when iWiW appeared in Hungary, everyone hoped that internet communication would promote freedom of expression, as there was no strict censorship culture on the internet. The users trusted iWiW and then Facebook, and they shared their innermost feelings, secrets, and desires without much fear. However, as the years have gone by and the political scene has changed, more and more users have complained that platforms do not only remove explicitly tasteless or illegal content, but sometimes also censor political opinions and posts; moreover, they may also delete the pages of activists, influencers, and publicists, and even ban those who stand up for them. For these reasons, trust in social media sites has declined in recent years. Without control, a new kind of “digital totalitarianism” without a proper framework may emerge, which might endanger freedom. One of the symptoms of the crisis of confidence is that fake news has become a catchphrase in the past few years, and, in the meantime, the general public has become increasingly aware that people in many areas are purposefully influenced by the media. Having regard to truly harmful threats and in order to protect freedom of expression and democratic values, we must prevent specific tech-giants
from artificially shaping public discourse without genuine rules. Social media is a doubleedged sword that platforms can use for their own sake, and, occasionally, even for political purposes, endangering the democratic nature of elections. This may result in fewer providers, but we have a right to know why, how, and by whom we are manipulated, while our personal information is compromised. In some cases, law can only respond to social processes with a considerable delay, so it is vital to create a regulatory framework that is flexible enough to respond to new challenges. Naturally, education is also important in training responsible citizens who can equally distinguish between good and bad, useful and harmful. Hence, they will be able to avoid being manipulated by unknown algorithms.
INTRODUCTION
17
G RS UE
AUTHORS
G RS UE O
AUTH ST
9
AUTHO ST
Baritz, Sarolta Laura OP Dominican sister and economist, one of the leading figures of the training programme and mission called Christian Social Principles in Economy at
Christian Ethics and Big Tech Giants—A World Turned Upside Down, with Potentials
Sapientia College of Theology of Religious Orders
Czékus, Ábel Researcher of international finance and globalisation and PhD candidate at the Doctoral
Big Companies: How Their Regulation Can Help Innovation
School in Economics, University of Szeged
Fabianowicz, Rafal PhD student at Andrássy University Budapest in the field of political science
States or Tech Giants as the New Sovereign?
with a focus on climate change
Kelemen, Zoltán Assistant lecturer at the Institute of International
The Neomedievalist Approach to Big Corporations
Studies, Corvinus University of Budapest
Koltay, András Professor of law at the National University of Public Service
142
AUTHORS
Online Gatekeepers and the Future (and Present) of the Democratic Public Sphere
G RS UE
G RS UE O
AUTH ST
AUTHO ST
Mátyus, Imre A new media researcher with a special interest in free and open-source software communities and an assistant lecturer at the Department of Communication and Media Studies of the
Hacker Culture and Open Source or Tech Giants and Patent Protection—Where Does Real Innovation Come From?
University of Szeged
Molnár, Attila Károly Historian of ideas, Director of the Thomas Molnar Institute for Advanced Studies and the Századvég Publishing House, author of several books on polit
Utopian Aspirations and Dystopian Fears Concerning New Media
ical and social thinking and religion
Németh, Áron Senior Retail Business Development Manager at Erste Group Bank AG in Vienna, responsible for microbusiness segment coordination, former Head of Products and Processes for Small
Battleground Banking—An Epic Battle Where Only One Thing Is Certain: That Clients Will Win
Business at UniCredit Bank Hungary, and one-time consultant of PwC
Papp, János Tamás media law specialist and research fellow at the Lecturer at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Institute for Media Studies, the National Media
Caught in a Web—How Can Legislation Help Us Get Our Private Life back from Social Media?
and Infocommunications Authority
AUTHORS
143
T H O S
A
R
U
A J PhD, Historian Editor, In Focus
Csepregi, Zsolt MA, International relations expert Deputy Director for International Affairs
F
K
C
O
Baranyi, Tamás Péter
Interview with Gábor Bojár Modern Thalassocracy—Myth or Reality?
City States of the Future—A Global Model or Unique Examples?
Pálmai, Zsolt MA, American studies specialist
What to Do with Facebook
Transatlantic Relations Manager
Pál, Zsombor Szabolcs PhD, Historian Researcher
Interview with Judit Varga Interview with Gábor Bojár The Origins of Innovation Frenzy
Papp, Viktória Anna LLM, Specialist in international law and China; BSc, International relations specialist International Relations Manager
144
AUTHORS
Setting a New Pace—Chinese Tech Companies and Their Connection to the State
T H O S
A
R
U
A J International Relations Manager
F
K
C
O
Schwarcz, Emese MA, International relations expert
Japan vs South Korea—When Trade Interests Collide with State Interests
Talárovich, Orsolya MA, East Asian studies specialist
Good or Bad?—China’s Social Credit System
International Relations Manager
AUTHORS
145