Categories
zoom

Worries about life in | Pew Research Center.

Looking for:

Five9 Stock Looks Cheap After Zoom Deal Collapse, Says Morgan Stanley | Barron’s.

Click here to ENTER


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/1215.txt Views News. While the hover-quote on Zacks. Many people will be dead zoom price target 2025 – none: many others more will be permanently damaged, physically or mentally or economically. Taxation and labour laws will need to change, to enable individuals to participate in nonw: more secure, more equitable digitally enabled gig economy. Institutions from churches to schools to governments were concrete entities with no metalife. Facebook is increasingly the outlier here in what they are doing, and Noone: hope they will make meaningful changes to address concerns about it being used as a platform for misinformation and data mining of user information. My worries are related to: 1 Ethics and privacy rights.
 
 

– Zoom price target 2025 – none:

 
There is loss of choice and autonomy and the loss of anonymity. There will be plenty of high-status people who will come out of the pandemic with wealth, health and their life goals intact.

 

Should I buy Zoom Video Communications (ZM) – Zacks.

 

Companies are failing on security and fraud prevention. Enhanced services require access to data, but I want to have control over the ways my data are used.

How can I achieve that? Technology tends to constrain my behavior by guiding it toward well-understood channels. Tech companies need to detect this effect and respond in agile ways. How can we scale personalization and flexibility? Rigidity leads to catastrophic failures not to mention loss of customers. This means an increase in software vulnerabilities. We will see increases in the unreliability of infrastructure due to cyberwarfare from the unstable geopolitical scene.

More online theft will take place due to more desperate people — because of the economic circumstances. People may be ready to adopt contact-tracing apps during a pandemic, but these will be coupled with data mining by both governments and technology companies to increase their power and economic value.

With the increase in telehealth and closed supply chains, medical technology will increasingly harvest data from unknowing populations and use it for private profit, not necessarily public good.

Already privacy is almost fictional, and the right to express ideas is being manipulated. This is twisting the political processes in democracies. See examples like the last U. The head of research at a major U. Technology companies will be neutral players in this; simply advancing technological capabilities, by perceiving their roles as limited, apolitical entities, simply pursuing a course of technological development.

Individual technologists, leaders and employees may have — and express — qualms about the potential misuse of some technological capabilities, but this will not prevent their development and deployment, although it may cause some companies to forgo involvement. Individuals and populations will remain vulnerable to the security applications of technologies for surveillance and control. Both hostile state actors and nonstate organizations and individuals may also use improved technological capabilities to perform terroristic attacks and hacks aimed at disrupting society and harming lives such as the viral attacks on power companies in Eastern Europe.

It is now well within the grasp of most nation-states to exert sufficient control over the data passing within their borders that they can consider it a sovereign sphere. The arguments in favour of leveraging this capability to fight the pandemic are in equal parts compelling and frightening. We are, alas, at a point where the machine is running at such a rate of speed that our only options are to continue accelerating or risk the whole thing breaking apart. Technology is the prime enabler of this situation.

Despite the risks, however, the majority of political power brokers in the world seem content to send a succession of shocks through the system that not only threaten its smooth operation, they threaten its ability to work.

We are entering a phase of global society, therefore, in which the new normal requires we deal with higher stakes than at any point since World War II. I fear collapse. Better communication brings more prosperity.

This a demonstrable and well-understood fact. Tracey P. I foresee greater ICT solutions that will track, sort, leash, fence people more and more. The technologies may start as a public-health tool, but they will leapfrog into other areas such as in workplace, at play, during travel, in the smart home, the smart housing estate, the smart city, the digital twin and other national and international interconnected smart technologies or large social and technological systems.

The technologies may start as a public-health tool, but they will leapfrog into other areas such as in workplace, at play, during travel, in the smart home, the smart housing estate, the smart city.

Even suggesting these ideas in some circles is to be considered as anti-progress, old school, traditionalist, impeding progress and the like. There is also very little use of these technologies to liberate, but they are to control, and there is little scrutiny as to who gets control, and what social and technical biases will be encoded into these new technologies.

The technologies will, of course, be reflecting the concerns of politicians, economists, existing legal frameworks and of course the companies that will profit from these.

Interoperability and standards are our friends, but in this case, when the ecosystem of data, software, apps, code, sensors, readers, devices, platforms, massive data storage, data brokers and geodemographers, chip manufacturers, the states, the private sector and some large alliances, interoperability becomes a foe, as there will be no workaround.

Anonymity will be replaced by autonomous systems; agency by automation; heterogeneity by rule sets to sort. While most of us have been grateful for the key role that the internet has played during this time of pandemic, we have also felt forced to make some choices purely as an emergency response — choices we might not have made otherwise — about what data to share with which entities.

Given the push toward contact-tracing apps, various tech tools that offer to protect people as they return to work and other surveillance technologies being deployed in the name of health or national security, and given the vast numbers of people who are losing their jobs who might therefore feel compelled to accept privacy-invasive conditions on their employment, I believe that, out of fear and a sense of lack of choice, Americans will feel even more powerless to protect their privacy.

It is hard to know what the role of technology and technology companies will ultimately be. There are also efforts to pass some privacy-related federal laws, but the clashing agendas of various stakeholders might prevent their passing. We increasingly rely on technology to keep us safe, keep us connected, keep us employed.

The lines between data collected by private companies and data collected or used by governments was already blurry; it is getting even more so now that data-sharing is seen as one way to combat the pandemic and its related challenges.

Given ongoing justified concerns about data that is purportedly collected for one purpose but then used for others, it is hard to know what the role of technology and technology companies will ultimately be.

None of these processes is good for the public nor for democracy as a whole. The more panicked the public gets during the pandemic, the more leadership may choose to normalize and enforce the adoption of these tools which will also enable lots of extra data collection by technology companies and government.

It is summer of , and I am watching the not-much-discussed nexus of citizen reporting via cellphone, security video, facial recognition, cellphone tracing and the identification and potential prosecution of protesters and looters in the recent unrest.

During the pandemic an assortment of technologies have gained ground that I can only describe as disgusting. Two poster children: remote-examination proctoring systems in education and systems that allow employers to monitor and track employees working at home. There are doubtless numerous others. They are inflicting this on their consumers. Is there going to be a recalibration on this in the vendor community, and are consumers going to vote with their dollars in support of this recalibration?

As technology becomes more ubiquitous and systems potentially interoperable what are my Whole Foods app and my Withings scale telling Blue Cross Blue Shield about my health status? The ability to monitor and surveil as corporations and governments is largely unchecked, in part because of the lack of tech savvy of lawmakers involved in public policy. Melissa R. Large social media companies do not have good track records on these issues; if we are conducting more of our lives online, then there are more possibilities for misuse of our personal data and of negative impacts on individuals.

Charles M. Both governments and the tech giants will continue to push for intruding technologies in the name of greater efficiency, including surveillance tracking of the virus and its inevitable successors, as well as marketing claims of greater fitness, well-being, etc. Profit through data collection is a powerful engine and one difficult to resist much less regulate. As a few commentators have argued, surveillance capitalism is closely analogous to medieval societies.

Worst case: A few will be the very grand and wealthy lords and ladies e. The political dialogue around whatever happens is no longer trustworthy. When there is no trust in tech — we will find ways to destroy it.

The tech companies will increasingly be blamed for their failings. All are based on manipulation of large-scale exchanges. Some are more open than others to outside abuse. All have a concentration of information that can be leveraged. All either are regulated or have a regulated compact that protects their position. Government is far, far behind. The systems are all broken or managed by outside contractors and thus, again, set up in the interest of generating profit and power for a few rather than for the betterment of all.

People will be more dependent on technology, but trust it less. There are other ways to encourage companies to protect privacy, including mandating that they are transparent about how they do it, how much they spend and how they have failed.

Some will be dark and become permanent surveillance architecture. I am afraid we will take the silent acceptance of the surveillance technology to the next level. Nothing really new here. Without legalized encryption, consider a tiny portion of a virtual day: I attend any type of virtual meeting: Everything I saw and heard at that meeting can be captured and stored digitally, for some authority or hacker to later analyze at leisure.

If I wore a virtual suit, then authorities would be able to know also everything I have felt during those virtual interactions. Sensors will flood the world, measuring whatever you can think of, including our bodies. It is not clear who will own the data, nor what the analyses might be and what the results of that will do to us.

We will face big control issues that will lead to political instability. The growing dependency on digital technology will create a paradise for hackers, so cybersecurity will be one of the top priorities, costing society trillions.

Surveillance capitalism is possible partly because companies take advantage of us, but partly because of weak regulation and a social and educational failure to push back against it. The early promise of the internet was a decentralized system in which millions of small businesses flourished.

Increasingly, we have built a highly centralized system that supports mass surveillance. This is the structure we are transferring into the physical world via the Internet of Things, smart cities, connected cars, algorithmic decision-making and robots.

Often, adoption of these technologies is proceeding against what most people would want. There is loss of choice and autonomy and the loss of anonymity. Increasingly, every transaction — financial or personal — is being intermediated.

People talk to their friends and Facebook takes a slice; they pay for a newspaper article and Apple takes a slice — and in both cases the data gathered is then repackaged, resold and repurposed.

China, Europe and the United States weigh the value of these nodes differently. For similar situations in the future, policymakers and businesses will not have to start from scratch in working with supply chains, medical responses and economic safety nets, rather they will have case studies for what works effectively. Each sector of the economy will experience transformations that enable it to perform more efficiently. Individuals who understand these changes and are prepared for them will become better off.

Without a mechanism for compensation to individuals, technology companies will reap the economic benefits. Several companies are proposing placing electronic health records and our genomes in accounts where we can sell our data directly to pharmaceutical companies and bypass middlemen tech companies. Chris Savage, an expert in legal and regulatory issues based in Washington, D.

Therefore, I suspect that overall privacy will be degraded as a result of these changes. After a period of protected quarantines, lockdowns and illness, they will lean more on social media to stay connected, with less concern that their data is a commodity. Only if the service requires payment will users care, as this type of contract is well-known to be legally binding vs.

Facebook selling data to third parties. Identity certification may get relegated to a consortium of big tech companies, based on their existing profiling data ownership, via social media and subscription data, in lieu or in support of state-certified identities.

A share of these experts concentrated their concerns on the future of work. They predicted a number of things to happen in the coming years: In order to survive, businesses are reconfiguring systems and processes to automate as many aspects as possible. While artificial intelligence AI and robotics will enhance some lives, they will damage others as more work is taken over by machines. Employers may outsource labor to the lowest bidder globally.

Employees may be asked to work for far less; they may have to shift to be gig and contracting workers, supplying their own equipment, and they may be surveilled at home by employers. While this will encourage more variety and fluid relationships with hirers, it will also create more economic uncertainty and precarity for many.

Many businesses will have accelerated their use of a range of enterprise technologies — from implementing digital nonhuman labor such as software bots to utilizing skills banks — to manage their increasingly fluid organizations.

More workers and teams will use AI-fueled tools to help them coordinate and collaborate more effectively. Education will become significantly unbundled, with a range of learning contexts beyond traditional schooling.

Software will help humans to better understand, develop and augment their skills and help them find and create a broader range of work opportunities. Hirers will embrace software-fueled strategies to ensure that workers in nonstandard work roles will have many of the same rights as full-time employees, such as unbundled benefits and reliable shift work.

As a result, high-tech and other companies will stop depending on nonstandard workers as a fungible commodity. Teams will have the tool set that will allow them to dynamically and rapidly bond around problems to solve.

Some employers may try to shift costs towards workers using private equipment, taking on both expenses and liability and increasing economic divides. Work performed online and personal presentation also performed online will resemble each other, even become interoperable. Employment, having a job, will become increasingly STEM-dependent. For the rest, jobs will become scarce as the COVID pandemic gives employers plausible deniability to downsize.

In effect, much of the economy becomes a gig economy while self-branding becomes as essential as a seatbelt. Economic security will be available only to those who can repeatedly adapt to multiple simultaneous accelerations and self-brand as they do so. This will affect our individual and collective sense of well-being since many will be unable to successfully adapt and reconfigure their careers and lives.

A major factor has been accelerating the winner-take-all trend of monopolistic corporations dominating their markets, thus away from jobs protected by unions. This group includes pundits, and hence basically everyone responding to this survey. Small businesses which are replaced with low-wage, no-benefits delivery jobs will not be nearly as well represented in media stories about employment changes. The pandemic has accelerated the long-standing trend for professionals to do telecommuting, internet meetings and similar.

This is another factor producing further stratification of society and dangerous levels of inequality. Is this better or worse? It will obviously be worse for those who lose jobs in meat-processing plants or in warehouses but will be a benefit to shareholders and the public at large. This is an unprecedented challenge for the whole world.

It will start playing out in some nations over the next five years as well as beyond that for the next several decades. Dan S. Relatively few workers will have the luxury of working at their own pace. Needless to say, more-invasive monitoring implies issues with privacy. Who knows the impact of the virus on anyone younger than 22 today?

Every month without teachers who inspire will be a net negative. American society will stratify a little differently with respect to who gains and who loses. Employment will mostly be better for the last half of Millennials through college graduates in Employers will cite experience with remote access, gamification and general economic malaise as further reason to cut total salaries.

Older Millennials and Generation X will be lumped together as being too expensive. Retired Boomers who have good retirements will continue to have good retirements because the capital markets will still be driven by corporate boards that look like much they do today; and further, the same incentives will apply. The Boomers who have inadequate financial reserves who have stayed at home during the virus due to health risk will not be rehired. Their places will be filled with adults in their 20s who are not college graduates.

I can imagine productivity leveling off because the gains of machine learning and deep learning will be a wash or swamped by the losses of experienced middle managers and specialists.

Since most data scientists surveyed say that decision makers at their companies do not use their evidence to support important decisions, data will continue to be artificially valued. Many of these tools perpetuate systemic bias by, for example, comparing new applicants to existing employees or creating arbitrary scoring mechanisms that serve to disadvantage diverse candidates, leading to discriminatory practices.

In all arenas, I am concerned that the move to more life online as a result of the pandemic could lead to greater surveillance and abuse of personal privacy and private information by the tech companies providing us the platforms we now need to work and learn.

The industries and individuals who adapt to this environment will be better off. Automation has likely received a bit of a jolt, but humans will still need to maintain oversight and quality control — this makes us better off preventing injuries and creating distance but does decrease some job availability.

Learning to code early on will make people better off in terms of employment options. I fear that employers will continue to use technology to intensify work and subject workers to new systems of surveillance and control in ways that will jeopardize their well-being and economic security.

Barring legislative and regulatory changes, low-wage workers will continue to be most vulnerable to these changes. This in turn will lower employment in those sectors. They will not return to pre-pandemic levels. This workforce revolution will not see sufficient retraining or redistribution of jobs by , meaning long-term unemployment for many and worse outcomes. Misplaced hope in this approach will delay work on structural changes necessary to actually address the social and economic upheaval wrought by the pandemic.

And further, that the divide will grow. The gap between online and real-world workers will increase, so much so that it is unlikely to be bridgeable. There will be a push for increased automation, so one result will be an acceleration not sure how much of replacing many jobs. For knowledge workers, going to the office will become a choice and improvements in virtual meeting technologies will continue and make remote working even more possible.

In the U. I expect to see a greater bifurcation of society — with those knowledge workers who remain employed consuming increasing amounts of digital services and online shopping — while those who are not part of the knowledge economy are increasingly gig workers in precarious employment. Privacy will increasingly be under threat unless specific jurisdictions regulate it. This includes facial recognition and other biometric data. Increasingly biometrics will become part of the authentication and access regime.

Digital government services will continue to expand — except in the U. Industry will seek to cut costs through automation not just robotics and ignoring regulation as it gets rewritten e. This will reduce the misery of doing those jobs but creates a risk of both short-run skill mismatch and long-run unemployment. AI and sensors will be used by governments for all sorts of repressive sorting.

Tech companies will happily sell them the tools to do it. This will impact their ability to do their jobs, and especially will reduce the ability of women — who are most likely to bear the brunt of this effect — to work and succeed in their careers. The gap in technology that separates people but was hidden because the gap is usually in their homes will become starker and more important.

If so, this will not only degrade the quality of working life, it will also further inure people to the supposed inevitability of digital surveillance, thereby opening the door to the further invasion of privacy by both businesses and governments.

For blue-collar workers, policy protections are critical. The hourly-wage often entry-level jobs lost during the pandemic retail, hospitality will come back only partially, and slowly. More workers will be working from home as part-time or full-time teleworkers and will enjoy greater flexibility. Alongside that, however, they will also suffer from constant supervision by their employers.

Employers will use AI to vet whether the worker is working in every concrete minute, the efficiency of the worker, etc. These workers cannot find any comfort in technology. They might have new positions that include constant work with a robot such as in warehouses — but the salary will be poor, they will not have any real connections with the other colleagues and the work will be boring and repetitive. This situation is not deterministic. We can use technology as an instrument to ensure greater participation of workers at the workplace.

The legal system has to be an integral part of this process. To make this all processes more accessible and more productive, we need to use technology. I worry over the lack of social responsibility among tech developers. Achieving full employment will be a significant problem.

This may lead to further global instability and, because the mindset of the human nature is still backwards, this may lead to wars. There will be an increasing concentration of both monopoly and monopsony power in the hands of only a few companies, combined with further weakening of organized labor, and the effective irrelevance of government and collective action with real-world effect, leaving functional decisions in the hands of a few large companies, which will nevertheless be operating at Dunbar-number human scales with respect to their decision making, meaning that the levers of power will be able to change the world, but in all-too-fallible hands.

Wilson has said, modern civilization and humanity are characterized by paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology. Massage therapy or in-person athletic coaching or teaching, trash removal, construction, etc. In this canvassing, their concerns take a dark turn. The pessimists now argue that digital propaganda is unstoppable. They worry about its ongoing impact as the rapidly expanding weaponization of cloud-based technologies divides the public, deteriorates social cohesion and threatens rational deliberation and evidence-based policymaking.

But I only see it getting noisier. Using the lowest-cost solution to receiving information is like trying to stay informed using only free newspapers from a city street corner — saturated with ads and cynical and sensationalist. Governments around the world are cracking down on arms-length national broadcasters like BBC and PBS while at the same time enabling corporate media. Thus, the new normal will encompass refereeing a facts-scrum: truth, lies, distortions, assertions, contradictory information, datasets, data streams from emerging technologies, analyses — all vying for our embrace and attention.

We will find ways to verify our identities and seek to avoid those who are not who they say they are; we will struggle with factfulness, the antidote to global ignorance. With problems waxing even more complex, and invasive technologies such as facial recognition or predictive policing advancing to esoteric levels, we will be forced to address pressing issues using verifiable facts — otherwise democratic institutions will not survive.

As long as we are creating radicalization and conspiracy bubbles at scale, social media companies will remain massive threats to the stability of societies. Who mediates this? Who decides which technologies the public is offered? I think this is the most concerning technological question of the decade: What are the systems that can help us to better assure that misinformation is abated and credible information is more widely spread?

Relatedly, platform owners have entered into a new era in which they are being held accountable for allowing misinformation to propagate on their platforms. This remains an unsettled issue, but between now and there will be significant regulatory changes that may address these issues — but given the complexities involved, this is likely to be a fraught and contentious set of issues.

When people get segmented into small disparate communities — i. And we have seen how easy it is to manipulate opinion and behaviors online. I am sure cavemen already had rumor mills.

We deserve better, especially when rumors can spread across 8 billion people in a few hours. And I worry that deepfakes may make truth almost impossible to ascertain. Democracies have vulnerabilities that may be increasingly attractive to their enemies, both internal and external. Authoritarian states can monitor citizens and overseas populations more effectively with tools like facial recognition.

The addition of sensor feedback into automation of all types, from traffic handling to regulatory regimes, could greatly improve the functionality of our systems. Until we task AI with the complex logistics needed to optimize the use of resources and the smart automation needed to perform low-skilled jobs, many workers will be overtaxed: teachers, bus drivers, health professionals, mental health professionals, caregivers, administrators, just to name a few.

We face a vast amount of work that has been ignored over the past decades full of short-sighted decisions. We have failed to maintain our infrastructure, but more importantly, we have failed to care for the future of the next generation. To turn that work into jobs requires determination and the ability to stand up for our values, stand up against a system that rewards corporations seeking short-term profit over any other goal. Carbon fee and dividend is the first step toward shifting the structure of our economy toward a more egalitarian one, with better values.

The policies of the current administration have accelerated that divide. Many companies in the tech and service industries will realize that a work-at-home model is efficient and less costly for some or many of their workforce and that they do not need expensive commercial urban real estate. Therefore, more people will work from home, which affects everything from daily routines to the makeup of services offered to the home. However, this is a luxury for only a set of individuals who can work from home and can afford the set up high-speed access, required space and internet-enabled equipment to work from home.

This of course sets a new and quite complex normal for managing cybersecurity threats. Large-scale industry events will be less prevalent, as will the frequency of corporate travel. Overall, there will be less economic security. One of the legacies of the pandemic is the realization that although many conveniences of modern life are predicated on the simple assumption that close proximity of people yields economic and social benefits, in an age of accelerating climate change and multiple pandemics COVID is likely a precursor of others yet to come that will no longer hold true.

Conveniences such as airplane travel, movies, amphitheater, subways, high-rise apartment units, shopping malls, were based on this assumption and as a result densely packed areas were sustained hotspots of infection. The pandemic highlighted how unprepared we as a nation are, not only in terms of our acceptance of scientific and evidence-based advice, but also in regard to having the means to efficiently and economically deal with a public health crisis.

A beneficial tech-related change will be the delivery of some aspects of health care into the home. For example, people will continue to have online consultations with health professionals instead of an inconvenient in-person visit.

This is already happening and will be the new normal. Internet of Things-based devices will be more plentiful and will serve as a means to monitor everyday health and diagnose and in some cases remotely manage illnesses without the need for intrusive surgery. However, they will also pose a much greater threat in terms of privacy and cybersecurity.

More and more private data will be generated, collected and used. Unless there are appropriate safeguards and controls as to how the data is handled, we will see an erosion of our privacy and further loss of control over our choices and decisions as a result. Internet of Things devices have the potential to greatly improve our well-being, and we will see AI-enabled IoT devices which will, for example, monitor our health, provide biological feedback, anticipate and warm of an impending health crisis, etc.

But IoT devices increase the attack surface and vectors for bad actors. We will see rise of new cybersecurity threats. Given where we are now in terms of lacking a basic level of cyber hygiene for these devices, unless we make significant progress we will fall further and further behind the bad actors. If the pandemic persists for many months or spills over into another year, the recession will go into free fall.

Countries without such a safety net will be forced to choose between solidarity and oppression. This will entail identification, allocation, distribution and delivery — all of it enabled by a range of digital tech.

Identity control will therefore have to be enforced very strictly, to avoid fraud. Other previously inconceivable disruptions will occur, e. Distinguished schools with vast traditions will thus have to reconsider and redefine their missions and their very purpose and a number of them may not prove sustainable.

Overwhelmed health systems will become the reserve of emergency and infection treatments. Workplaces will become leaner and nimbler. Specialized teams will work on project-based assignments, often without the need for a large enterprise to sustain them. Taxation and labour laws will need to change, to enable individuals to participate in a more secure, more equitable digitally enabled gig economy.

Digital technologies can be employed to help to improve these conditions, but unless their benefits can be realized by all, social justice and equality will remain elusive. Digital technology, and the means to use and understand it, must be considered a primary social good.

Technologies that will assist people in living productive, healthy lives — like online learning, working and telemedicine tools — should be freely and widely available, along with necessary and relevant information and support. Social media enabled us to connect with people anywhere in glancing ways; video conferencing in many forms — virtual conferences, happy hours and so on — will let us connect in more direct and meaningful ways.

But we cannot gloss over the still-unknown health repercussions that millions of needlessly infected people will have to deal with; the severe economic impact on so many sectors of a service economy permanently affecting the employment of people in lower-paid jobs; the likely permanent economic damage to universities and colleges as institutions; the lost educational time for children during the pandemic; and mental stress on everyone.

As much we may now suffer Zoom fatigue, I believe that in the long run, having become accustomed to seeing people in online calls, we will find they provide richer interaction.

At work we will still be addicted to having too many damned meetings but if we can waste less time traveling or commuting to them, all the better. I would like to think that we would see the value in gathering and sharing health data at a level that would allow us to spot and treat problems early in their spread in the future, but I fear a growing moral panic around data may prevent that.

When it comes to platforms, specifically, one of my biggest concerns is the impact they have on our speech and our well-being or dignity. On the one hand, hate speech is rampant and companies are responding piecemeal. On the other hand, at a time when many of us need platforms for our livelihoods, companies are cracking down prudishly on nudity, sexuality and the human body. I worry about the fact that so many people are willing to hand over the governance of their speech to unaccountable actors.

Morgan G. And what I see are too many opportunities for the powerful to retrench and expand their power. Ubiquitous surveillance, increasingly fascist policing tactics, the expansion of hate groups that amplify the worst state ideologies, and the widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everyone else are all global structural trends that will be incredibly difficult, and incredibly disruptive, to reverse.

As much as I would like to hold out hope that the disruptions caused by the novel coronavirus can be turned toward social justice, the evidence so far that this is the case is really not good. Travel may be less necessary thanks to video conferencing. I have maintained significant international interactions despite time zone challenges for the past three months.

I further expect:. Christina J. The failures of social media and AI are not technology problems. They are problems of human design and execution. Alan D. Technology will help if the right people do the right things.

The social media were hijacked by thugs and trolls to do incalculable damage. Their efforts were at once ignored and abetted by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk to amp up page views to boost ad revenues. Social media had great promise to level the intellectual playing field by giving everyone the power to give or get whatever information they wanted. Instead, the social media have become treacherous cesspools of mis- and mal-information.

Artificial intelligence can do wondrous things so long as it is properly trained and deployed. That is its notable fail. For instance, AI often fails to accurately recognize the faces of people of color. When AI is used to recommend sentences for criminals, it tends to discriminate against people of color. Technology is only as good as the people who devise and control it. I am less interested in potential technology advances; I am worried about whether new developments will be wisely and safely deployed.

Kathleen M. There will be an increased understanding of viruses and how to create vaccines and improved technology to support health care. There will be regulation of and self-imposed constraints on social media platforms. There will be a small increase in automation, but more effort on designing and building even more automation for the home and small businesses that will become more ubiquitous and some type of certification for AI to show that it meets some ethical standards.

There will be certification for online tools to show that they meet some privacy standard. The U. Some jails have released large numbers of lesser offenders to prevent pandemic blooms. I predict this will also force legal reforms in how trials are conducted, which may even cause major changes in the legal profession.

Sam S. Given the caveats of no multiple concurrent pandemics and no revolution-scale social unrest, these changes will likely accelerate a number of positive transitions that will improve life in general. This was the case in and there is no reason to expect anything different here. Changes such as remote work, teleconferencing, telemedicine and remote learning are mostly positive. The changes that have emerged were technically feasible for years but held up by institutional rigidities.

As a whole, I think most people will be worse off, not solely because of the pandemic, but at least as much due to intensifying trade wars, a decline in international cooperation and more. The impact of climate change will still not be catastrophic, but it will continue to grow. I hope for the acceleration of trends toward remote work for jobs in the upper-income quartile or two. The greatly increased use of teleconferencing, with a corresponding decline in travel; tourism will take a long time to return to previous levels, if ever.

Increased reliance on telemedicine. A major retooling of the education and training systems was needed anyway, not only to shift to remote learning which is not simply the same as current practice done from afar , but also to lifelong learning. I worry about the growing dominance of a small number of platforms. My worry for AI and big data is challenges with explainability. A key question is, how soon do we find a viable vaccine and how long does it take to put that into production, and when does it become part of the annual flu-season vaccine?

If for some reason a vaccine and treatment continue to be elusive, then all bets are off for recovery by Some will not recover — for example, e-commerce, on-demand delivery and working from home are not retreating. The displacement of brick-and-mortar retail by e-commerce, which has been steady and slow, has been kicked into high gear — how will the convenience of e-commerce versus the experience of physical retail unfold? While working from home or remotely under different scenarios is not perfect or anywhere near as good as it could be, it is here to stay.

Many firms are discovering it is very cost-effective. The jury is still out on the true impact of productivity gains or losses due to working from home. This will continue to provide funding for more innovations in the communications technology sector — we are already seeing improved security and some small advances in user interface and user-experience improvements we may finally get real spatialized audio. We seem to also be getting more serious about security.

Longer-term it is clear, of course, that society will continue to increase its dependence on digitally intermediated systems for every facet of life: health care, education, shopping, groceries, entertainment, transportation, work and finance — that trend is unstoppable. At the same time, we are a social species and we crave social interaction — risks will not sway us. I find it interesting that many modern efficiencies are based on getting many people physically close together.

Transportation, sports events, restaurants, education, work teams, hospitals, city parks, gyms, places of worship, Fifth Avenue, etc. Who and where do we each trust to get close to others? How will we meet new people? Will it be much more localized, like to our neighborhood? I expect a real increase in social isolation, especially for those older, or less tech savvy, or with few resources to connect virtually.

From wikis and such to continuous virtual conferencing. I worry about the availability of accessible, stable and secure bandwidth. There are too many dropped calls, glitchy video, audio drops every other word and a lack of scalability for group discussions. Privacy is also certainly an issue. If these are not addressed well it will increase social isolation. Many jobs are simply disappearing under the twin engines of small-business destruction and enterprise-scale automation.

More job providers are already seeking the security of automation to hedge against the next crisis. This will take 10 years at least. With such strong economic challenges, it is unclear if nationalism will retain its influence or if there will be a mandate for a more technocratic and educated leadership. In short, a five-year horizon will likely still feel disrupted and degraded for most, while a year horizon may see some of the sea changes underway that were only amplified by COVID start to yield meaningful results.

There will be a rocky transition to the next stable state. Companies substituting technology machines and algorithms for human labor. We will be able to scale up productivity to new heights by applying software and data to all areas of economic activity. Tech will also be on the front lines of responding to climate change. But tech will continue to foment huge problems like misinformation and social platforms that drive people apart. And in tech will be the vital ingredient of a new class of weaponry without safeguards to control it well.

It will also be seen in greater social and civic responsibility, including new controls on policing and greater access to services for minorities and underserved populations.

And it will be seen in a wider recognition of social responsibility, for example a return to more progressive taxation, especially corporate taxation, as a response to income inequality.

The idea is that instead of depending on a specific social media application to connect with friends and colleagues, people could use the application of their choice and use a common messaging standard. This makes it more difficult for platforms to shape discourse using algorithms and to monetize discourse using tracking and advertising. The current structure of dialogue and media privileges extreme and provocative content, which tends to polarize society and to make it more difficult to come to consensus on social issues.

Discourse that is more cooperative and creative enables constructive responses to be adopted society-wide to pressing issues of the day, including but not limited to equity, environment, prejudice and policing. With common communications protocols, solutions to pressing issues will begin to emerge. Common protocols also enable greater security, through such mechanisms of zero-knowledge proofs, for example. This allows better insight into the effectiveness of social programs and enables governments and critics to evaluate innovation on more than merely financial or economic criteria.

Before the pandemic, there was no incentive to support widely accessible cross-platform video conferencing. Then we had Zoom, a simple tool everyone could use, and suddenly we could work from home, learn remotely or host conferences online.

Having learned how convenient and efficient so many online services have become, we will be much less likely to commute to work, attend residence-based campuses or fly to conferences. This makes the world of work, learning and commerce much more accessible to large populations who previously did not have the resources to participate, and greatly increases our efficiency and productivity.

When technology divides us, it also disempowers us, as everything about us becomes subservient to the conflict. Our agency, our identity, our activities — all these become the means and mechanisms for one faction to fight the other. These factions may be defined politically or may be defined by class or race, by economic status or by power and control. Technological dystopia occurs when one faction uses technology against the other, perhaps by means of surveillance and spying, perhaps by means of manipulation and misinformation or ever by means of hacking and disruption.

By we will have a clear idea whether we are slipping into technological dystopia. Is this the beginning of a bear market? Vijay Kedia demystifies Mr Market’s mood. Choose your reason below and click on the Report button. This will alert our moderators to take action. Stock analysis. Market Research. Nifty 16, Macrotech Developers Ltd. Market Watch. Mutual Funds. ET NOW. Cryptocurrency By Crypto Influencers. Crypto Podcast. Crypto Meet. Crypto TV. Expert Speak.

Stocks Dons of Dalal Street. Live Blog. Stock Reports Plus. Candlestick Screener. Stock Screener. Market Classroom.