There is a lot of discussion in relation to how tech vendors and particularly big tech vendors need to do better, whether this is in relation to data protection, online safety, addressing fake news and many other considerations.    A recent presentation by Laura Knight at FutureShots24 where she spoke of the finite and infinite games, and of Simon Sinek’s book, “The infinite game”, got me thinking about this again.

Tech vendors need to sort it

Firstly it is important to acknowledge the benefits of technology;   The tools we have and use are there as they are useful and the tech companies that continue to operate are there as we as users choose to use their solutions, but there are also challenges and drawbacks associated with most technologies.    It is pretty clear that tech vendors need to do more to address the various challenges and risks which come about as a result of their products.    They provide a tool, whether it be a productivity suite, a social media application or a generative AI tool, among many others, with many people using these tools appropriately and for good, however, there are also then those who use these tools for ill, for criminal, unethical and immoral purposes.    Now I have blogged on this before, how tools are neither good or bad, but it is their use which is good or bad, however, the challenge is that through technology the resulting impact is magnified.   I have talked of a hammer as a tool, and how it could be used for assault, but unlike a hammer, a maliciously used social media tool can impact hundreds or thousands of people at once; the potential impact of the tools is much broader.   So, from this, it seems clear that tech vendors need to consider this negative impact and seek to mitigate the risk in the design of their platforms and through their processes.

The key here is that we are not really looking at these tools, but at their impact on wider society.   Society will continue, for good or for ill long into the future.   It is an infinite game.    Long after I am worm food, society will continue.   Likely long after many of these tech platforms have been and gone (think MySpace, Friends Reunited and the likes) society will continue.

And so, we look to rules and to laws to provide us with the frameworks and protections, where these rules and laws will exist long into the future, although they may evolve and be adjusted over time.    Sadly, though these laws and rules are designed for the long infinite game and therefore are slow to change, relying on established processes and methods not designed for the quick changing technological world we find ourselves in.  

With laws unable to keep up we find ourselves complaining that the tech vendors need to do more, and this is likely the case but the tech vendors know their time is limited as they may be dispatched to the bin should the next viral app come along, so they don’t want to expedite this through making a safer but less usable or less enjoyable or less attractive or addictive platform.   We have a problem!

But the tech companies are important

The tech companies are driven by profit as they are after all money-making companies with shareholders to answer to.   That said, many of the big tech companies do try to establish the moral and ethical principles by which they operate.    It is their drive for money which leads them to “move fast and break things”, to innovate and disrupt as they seek to find the next big thing and the corresponding profits which come with it.   And we need this innovation.   If we left innovation to governments, their processes, laws and rules would make the process of innovation so much slower than it is while it is in the hands of tech companies.  I suspect we would be still using 5 ¼” floppy discs at this point! 

The tech companies play the finite game, knowing that in this game there will be winners and losers so moving fast, disrupting and innovating is the only way to avoid being confined to the technology bin of history; think the polaroid camera, the mini-disc, and the platforms I mentioned earlier.    So, if the choice is spending longer to create a safer platform, but possibly being 2^nd to the market with a product, or getting it out quickly and being 1^st but then having to try and address issues later on, closing the gate after the horse has bolted, it seems pretty clear which the tech companies will choose.    Being 1^st means survival while being 2^nd might spell doom.

Solution?

I am not really sure that there is a solution here, or at least that there isn’t a perfect or near perfect solution.    Things will go wrong, and when they go wrong we will be able to highlight what could have or should have been done by tech vendors, governments or individuals to prevent the outcome.  But we have to remember we are dealing with technology tools operating at scale, and just take TikTok for example and its approx. 1 billion monthly users.    We haven’t yet banned cars but car accidents continue to happen!

Tech companies will continue to focus on the finite game and on maximising profit for their shareholders and on remaining viable, while politicians will also play the finite game, focussing on policies and proclamations which are more likely to be psotively received and to keep them in power, or help them to power.    But the world and society is an infinite game where what we do now may impact how things are for future generations.

I think we need to be pragmatic and I also think its about partnership and working together.  If governments, tech vendors and user groups can work together, discuss the benefits, the concerns and the issues, maybe we can make some progress.   Maybe we can find the best “reasonable” options and the “good enough”.     And I note, I feel some of this is already happening within some companies.     I suppose my one conclusion is simply that it isn’t for tech vendors to do more, it is for us all to do more, tech vendors, governments, schools, parents and adults more broadly, communities, and more.    And if we can do it, discuss and explore, find and test solutions together then maybe we can start to address some of the challenges.

Artificial intelligence

I don’t see the discussion of artificial intelligence in education going away as there is such potential.  The use of AI to support students, to help teachers and rebalance workload and much more.    It also makes for a good talking point for conferences or for developments.    I have two problems though.   One being that I think there will be a lot of talk, especially from vendors, without the reliable evidence supporting the impact and benefit of their tools.    As such I feel there will be a lot of misdirection of effort and resources when looking across schools in general.    Two is that artificial intelligence is all well and good, but it needs the relevant access to devices, to infrastructure, to support and to trained and confident teachers.    These digital divides need to be addressed before schools in general can then seek to use AI and leverage its potential benefits.

Online Exams

The issue of online or digital exams feels partly related to the sudden growth in AI and the resulting potential for AI marking of student work and therefore for AI based marking of student exams.    Again, I see this as another talking point for the year ahead but again am not sure we will see much real progress, possibly seeing less progress in this area than in AI.     The issue is that exam boards are taking things very tentatively so there first step will be “paper under glass” style exams which simply take the paper version of an exam and digitise it rather than seeking to modify the exam or examination process to benefit from the new digital medium.    For me the key benefit of online exams will be realised when they are adaptive in nature so can be taken anywhere and at any time.   This then means that schools wouldn’t need access to hundreds of computers for their students to sit an English GCSE exam as the students could sit the exam in batches over the day or over a number of days.    This would help towards the digital divides issue as it impacts online exams as schools wouldn’t need as many devices, but they would still need the infrastructure and the support to make digital exams work.

Mobile Phones and Social Media

Oh yes, and then there’s this old chestnut!   I suspect the phones and social media discussion will trundle on.   Students are being given phones without any parental controls and then schools are having to deal with this.   And some schools are taking the prohibition approach which is unlikely to succeed and may just deplete patience and resources.   I continue to believe we should be seeking to manage student mobile phones in school, so might restrict use in some areas and at some times but embrace and use them at other times.   We need to spend time with students talking about social media and its risks and benefits helping to shape the digital citizens which the world needs.

I also note here that social media is being blamed for the lack of focus and ease of distraction in students, and through association it is the fault of smart phones.    The world isn’t that simple, and having recently finished reading Stolen Focus by Johann Hari I am not more aware that other factors such as increasing levels of societal pressure to succeed, increased consumption of processed foods and our on-demand culture are all having an impact on our children.    Yes, social media, and by extension smart phones are playing their part but they are not the root and sole cause of the issues in relation to attention which we are seeing in schools and more broadly with children.

Fake news and deepfakes

This links to AI and also to mobile phones and social media, in the increasing ease with which fake news content can be convincingly developed including the use of images and video, and then shared online.    As fake news becomes an increasing issue, which I suspect the US elections will draw some focus on, there will be an increasing need for schools to consider how they discuss and address this challenge with their students.   More locally within education and within schools will be where we start to see increasing use of AI tools to create “deepfakes” by students and involving other fellow students, either “just having a laugh” or for the purposes of bullying.     This will be very challenging as the sharing of such content will quickly stretch beyond the perimeter of schools, spread through social media, messaging apps and the like, but where the victim and likely the perpetrators will be within the school.   

Wellbeing

This one came to me last, but if I was re-writing this I would likely put it first.   We talk about wellbeing very much but every year we look to see if the exam grades have gone up and are faced with increasingly compliance requirements around safeguarding or attendance or many other areas.    Improvements in results, or even the efforts to improve results mean more work, which means more effort and more stress.    More compliance hoops equally mean more effort and more work.    So how can we address wellbeing if educators are constantly being asked to do more than they did previously.   And exam results and compliance are just two possible examples of the “do more” culture which pervades society possibly driven by the need for economic and other growth as something to aim for.    Although growth and improvement is something laudable to seek, it cannot be continuous over time, not without deploying additional resources both in terms of money and human resources.    As such there needs to be a logical conclusion to the “do more” culture and my preference would be for us to decide and manage this rather than for it to happen to us.    AI can help with workload for example giving more time for wellbeing however my concern here is that this frees up some time to simply do more stuff, albeit stuff which might have an impact, but not positively on wellbeing.

Conclusion

The above are just five areas I see being cornerstones of educational discussion in the academic year ahead.   I suspect other things will arise such as equity of opportunity, although I note this links to pretty much all of the above.   There will also be other themes which arise but it will be interesting to see how these particular five themes develop during the course of 2024/25.

And so with that let me wish everyone a successful academic year.    Let the fun begin!

The recent issue with riots in the UK and the link to posts being made on social media got me once again thinking about fake news and about fundamentalism and how technology amplifies what I feel is a societal issue, plus how there is no perfect solution to this problem.

Is societal cohesion breaking down?

In recent years, societal cohesion appears to be fraying, with the rise of “us vs. them” thinking, amplified by both social and mainstream media. Social media platforms often promote binary arguments, encouraging people to view those outside their group—whether divided by race, religion, or ideology—as the enemy, with the short form nature of social media only adding to this.   Even attempts to address the issue, such as highlighting how a particular group might be marginalised or be targets of abuse often only serves to strengthen the polarisation and the view of “us and them”.     I also note, that this “in group”, “us”, vs, “out group”, “them” thinking is partly hardwired into us as humans in our unconscious bias with those like us stimulating a different reaction at a brain chemistry level than those who are not like us.

All of this polarization fosters echo chambers, where in-group members are conditioned to see the “other” as a threat. In such an environment, it hardly matters who the “them” is; the division itself becomes the focus. This breakdown in unity provides fertile ground for extremists and anarchists, who exploit the growing divide to further their agendas, often using civil unrest as a smokescreen for crime and violence.    The recent riots being just one example of this.

Preventing hate speech

So, we recognise there is an issue, and that extremists and anarchists are seeking to exploit this to their own gain often using social media.   The issue is that preventing hate speech in the vast sea of online content presents a significant challenge. With millions of posts generated daily, identifying harmful speech is like finding a needle in a haystack, often requiring sophisticated algorithms alongside human oversight. Yet, the question of who defines “hate speech” is also complex. While clear instances of racial, religious, or gender-based abuse are widely condemned, the grey areas are more contentious. Cultural norms, political contexts, and free speech concerns mean that definitions of hate speech can vary, raising questions about who gets to draw the line—and whether some voices may be unfairly silenced in the process.    Consider the issue in Gaza currently where I would suggest that there are two very different perspectives on the Israeli and Palestinian sides as to what might be hate speech, and anyone viewing from outside is likely to come down more towards one side or the other, but are either wrong or right?

Maintaining freedom of speech

While preventing hate speech is crucial, it’s equally important to safeguard freedom of speech. There’s a growing concern that governments could misuse their powers under the guise of regulation to suppress dissent or unpopular opinions, leading to oppression. In such scenarios, controlling the narrative becomes a powerful tool, with authorities shaping public discourse to suit their agenda. We have already seen some governments around the world actually seeking to turn off the internet at a national level in order to control the flow of information and we also know that targeting communications systems is a key initial phase of military operations.     This manipulation or control of information can easily blur the lines between truth and propaganda.   So how do we find a balance between preventing hate speech while maintaining freedom of speech and who makes the decisions as to where this balance lies?

Hate speech, fake news and the truth

And its even more complex than finding a balance;   Hate speech, fake news, and truth may seem like clear and distinct concepts, but identifying them in practice is far more complex. What one person considers hate speech could be seen as free expression by another, and fake news might be interpreted differently depending on one’s beliefs or sources of information. The truth, often thought to be absolute, can be clouded by bias, context, and perception, making it subjective and open to interpretation. In this highly polarized and fast-moving digital world, the line between these terms becomes increasingly blurred, as individuals and institutions apply their own definitions based on personal, political, or cultural lenses.

Conclusion

In an age of rapid information sharing and deepening societal divides, navigating the complexities of hate speech, fake news, and truth requires careful balance. While it’s vital to combat harmful rhetoric and misinformation, we must also safeguard freedom of speech and avoid allowing subjective interpretations to silence genuine expression. As technology evolves, so too must our approaches to maintaining societal cohesion, fostering open dialogue, and ensuring that efforts to regulate speech don’t become tools for oppression. Ultimately, finding common ground in an increasingly fragmented world will depend on our collective ability to engage with diverse perspectives and uphold democratic values.   My feeling is that we are heading one way, and it is the wrong way, towards a breakdown of societal cohesion, but I feel social media is just amplifying and contributing to the issue rather than being the root cause.    I wonder, are we more insular as a society when compared with 20 or 30 years ago?    Are our groups or local communities less diverse but in a more diverse world?     Are we more inclined to discussion and disagreement in terms of binary positions?   

The news tends to point towards simple answers such as preventing or policing hate speech as a solution, but the issue is that things are seldom that simple.   I also think it is worth considering that all of the press around the riots in the UK are referring to maybe a few 1000 people involved in criminal activity, but that’s out of a population of over 69million.    Are we ever going to be able to stop such a minority bent on chaos, damage and mayhem, and therefore does the very act of discussing them simply feed their aims?