![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Anderson-Rohe-Think-Tank-300x300.jpeg\")
*By Anderson Rohe<\/p>\n*By Anderson Rohe<\/p>\n
This article\u00a0part of the question<\/strong>\u00a0of how rash and even dangerous or risky statements of a forward-looking nature can be. Especially in speculative terms, in the face of a world order that is now multipolar and multifaceted. That is, composed not by one or only two hegemonic actors.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n Your\u00a0object of analysis\u00a0<\/strong>is the \u201cDeclaration for the Future of the Internet\u201d that the US, the European Union and other international allies recently shared[1]<\/a>.\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n A document that brings not only legitimate concerns about human rights, civil liberties and fundamental guarantees in the digital age, but also common world views of what they consider a \u201cglobal, free, interoperable, open, secure and more reliable internet\u201d.\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n Mainly through the Artificial Intelligent Act (AIA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA)[2]<\/a>. A comprehensive package of measures\u00a0ex ante<\/i>\u00a0in which the European Union aims not only to regulate digital markets in terms of freedom of expression, free initiative and competition, but which also aims to safeguard \u2013 through the precautionary principle \u2013 European digital sovereignty, the free international flow of data, as well as the rights of its citizens inside and outside the European bloc. By the so-called \u201cinteroperability\u201d.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n The thematic relevance is justified,<\/strong>\u00a0for a statement like this, however well-intentioned\u00a0a priori<\/i>, may have the opposite effect to that expected, in order to combat what it deems to be unfair and anti-competitive competition from other internet governance models, such as those proposed by China and Russia. Faced with systematic cyber attacks, mass disinformation campaigns of what they believe to be a foreign attempt to corrode Western democratic culture and values.\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n for the problem at hand<\/strong>\u00a0it's in the\u00a0timing<\/i>\u00a0and the turbulent \u2013 and somewhat rushed \u2013 context in which it is being delivered. That is, in the face of public commotion in the face of a belligerent scenario and a Russian threat to disconnect from the World Wide Web (WWW).\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n O initial goal<\/strong>, therefore, is to verify whether this proposal of governance through digital regulation is well-intentioned. And, secondly, whether it is, in fact, effective.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n Since, in a perfunctory analysis, the growing phenomena, sometimes due to the banning, sometimes due to the moratorium (temporary suspension) of the use and development of many of the applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI): be it generative AI (production of text and synthetic images), or predictive AI (mainly through facial recognition in public places for preventive policing purposes).<\/p>\n Because they are classified as high-risk or unacceptable risk Artificial Intelligence by some of their\u00a0players<\/i>. But not by other international actors.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n Which makes the Declaration not exactly neutral or impartial. Since his text is openly political in nature.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n THE hypothesis<\/strong>, therefore, is that the Declaration defeats the purpose it seeks to prevent. Because, instead of being inclusive, equitable and more accessible to users of the\u00a0web\u00a0<\/i>as a whole, it may fragment the internet, exclude non-signatory countries from the declaration and, thus, allow the formation of even more dangerous arrangements. Through the formation of a black market, military alliances and economic blocs that are much more competitive than those that already exist.\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n And a global scenario in which numerous, even conflicting, regulations are adopted is especially detrimental to the survival of small companies.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n So, look for how final result<\/strong>, to assess whether new digital technologies \u2013 such as Artificial Intelligence \u2013 have the dual potential of both promoting a more equitable world and also undermining international peace and the democratic rule of law. Depending on how technology is used and developed by the hegemonic actors who dominate it today.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n O method<\/strong>, therefore, is the comparative; to, then, oppose the different views on the present subject of digital regulation, especially in the controversial field of Artificial Intelligences. According to the three great existing models (either the\u00a0benchmark<\/i>\u00a0European, American or Chinese).<\/u><\/u>\u00a0<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0European Commission.\u00a0EU and international partners present a Declaration on the Future of the Internet<\/i>. Press Release 28 Apr. 2022. Available\u00a0on this link<\/a>.<\/u><\/u><\/p>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0R\u00d6HE, Anderson.\u00a0The reinvention of the internet and implications of a new era of digital regulation<\/i>. TransObjeto, 5 Nov. 2022. Available\u00a0on this link<\/a>.<\/p>\n