A New Model of Technological Ownership

Abstract
Vidal Otegui Ignacio UNIX system administrator Independent Consultant A New Model of Technological Ownership After decades of very fast technological development we are at a critical point where - due to new technologies - more power than ever has been concentrated in fewer hands than ever, causing very serious problems that hinder the proper deployment of new technologies and threaten the future of our society. This situation calls for a “technological reform” where a convenient part of the control and management of tech- nology shifts to new power structures based in communal ownership by the users and technicians involved in each particular 

Hypothesis
Core Today a few people control most of the new technological achievements, using them in questionable ways that erode public trust in new technologies, hindering their optimal use in such a way that our future as a successful technological society is jeopardized

This situation calls for new “power structures” that manage technology in a better way, so:
 • Public trust in current and future technologies is restored, so people can feel they own the technolo- gies they use and have a say in its management, deployment and development.
 • Efficient and transparent management of current technologies is warranted, avoiding abuses and “dark spots” in key areas like search engine results, mas sively deployed devices or widely used mes- sage systems, among many others.
 • Creation and development of new technologies are encouraged because their creators have their profits assured in case the technology is successful.

1.1 Examples of current technological abuse
Just to name a few related to the IT sector:
 • Heavily censored search engine results where independent web sites with valuable information and services are ignored and just results to “dominant” sites like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter (now X) and Wikipedia are shown.
 • False and imposed technological requirements, such as needing a cell phone to rent a bike, a Google account to register in a public library, scanning a QR instead of typing a URL, a WhatsAPP account to get a refund, or enabling JavaScript to read a few lines of text.
 • Imposed use of unsafe devices like current smartphones6, which lack the source code of key compo- nents and proper means to replace its software (OS) with other provided or modified by the user; too much often they also lack full technical specs required to confirm their safety.
 • Imposed arbitrary hardware decisions, for example, the use of led lighted screens instead of much healthier technology like color e-ink or Pixel-Qi dis plays, which have been available for a long time.
 • Cyber attacks by “mysterious agents” that never get caught and sabotage basic independent infras- tructure like email, telephony and web servers.
 • Imposed, unsafe and unnecessary technical complexity, Chromium browser being perhaps the best example of this.
This list could be endless and cover most sectors, not just IT. But the key point is that you need some technical knowledge of any given sector to be able to detect the technological abuses in that area, so the more our technological society develops, the more common people is unable to realize con sciously that they are being abused. This paves the way for opportunistic people with too much power to try to take over society by complex technological means. These attempts - so far half successful - can only lead to general disaster in the long term. But even today, if we think how our world should be thanks to our technology, and how it really is, we can see that the damage already done by these selfish inter ests is far too big.

1.2 Negative eff of technological abuse
A few examples of the nefarious effects of these abuses:
 • Credibility lost in public institutions, which are seen as either tolerating or being part of this “take over” of public power by technological corporations and wealthy individuals.
 • Growing apathy and mental health problems: psychotic drugs consumption has soared in those countries where “life digitalization” has been imposed more strongly.
 • Decreasing productivity11 due to the growing feeling of being just an insignif icant piece of machin- ery that will be treated as “obsolete” sooner than later.
 • General distrust in new technologies, for example AI or robotics, which instead of being seen with hope are seen as new dangerous weapons in the wrong hands.
 • Soft, silent, and often unconscious sabotage of society by common people.
 • Increasing concentration of real power in fewer hands, which just worsens the current situation, usually creating new technologies that produce bigger abuses that concentrate still more power in fewer hands.
The way out of this must be redistribution of a convenient part of this tech nological power between enough wise hands, and it makes all the sense that these hands are those of the users and technicians involved with each particular technol ogy or technical service.

1.3 Proposed solutions
My proposal is to adapt the communal ownership model of the past13 to our technological reality, so each technology or related service belongs and is managed by their users and technicians to such a degree that an optimal balance of power is reached with current financial and political power structures.
This new ownership model would work like this:
 • Ownership is defined just by a fact: being a user or a technician involved in a particular technology or service. For example: using an email service once every few days.
 • Owning a technology or service imply rights and obligations:
-The right to use it.
-The obligation to contribute to its proper management.
-The obligation to participate in related decision making processes.
Others to be defined, the fewer and simpler the better.
 • In the case of hardware devices, a smartphone for example, ownership and daily use of one device would imply owning all the technology inside it, and so getting involved with new software updates and having access to all the source code and full technical specifications among other things.
 • Of course, to participate in this “ownership model” some kind of online plat form will be needed, and this must be owned by their users and technicians following this very same model. To put this in practice some kind of new “technological law” will be needed that guarantees:
 • Communal ownership of technology as explained above.
 • Right to technology for basic needs, for example, owners could refuse access to the technology for a fancy video game, but not for a water making device or a vital medicine.
 • Right to be paid for technological services, so people is motivated to create, manage and improve technology.
 • Obligation to ensure that any technology one is involved with isn’t used for unlawful purposes. • Data generated by any technology belongs to its users and technicians.
 • Obligation to transparency: any technological device must have full technical documentation and full source code freely available to their users (owners).
 • No abuse by technological ignorance: people using any technology must have enough knowledge of it so they can’t be easily abused while using that tech nology.
 • Preference for small and efficient technological structures.
 • “People first” policy: technology must be at the service of people, not the other way around.
In short, there should be rules to avoid excessive power concentration and abuses while at the same time promoting efficiency, dynamism and the empower ment of people through people controlled technology. In other words, people must keep in mind that: either they own the technology they use, or they will be owned by those who own that technology. People must understand that living in a technological society implies techni cal involvement, in the same way that living in an old agricultural society implied responsibilities such as ploughing the land, storing seeds, cleaning forests and so on. 

Economic and social eff
The best effect of implementing this “technological reform” would be that the whole society will count with new strong foundations upon which to build the new technological society of the future. Apart fr om that, other positive effects would be:
 • People will feel to be an active part of new technologies and society at large, not their victims and/or passive users, this will make much easier and faster to implement new technologies, and so economic development will increase.
 • Productivity will grow because people will have hope in a future wh ere tech nology controlled by themselves will make their lives better, instead of fear of a future where they are substituted by robots and AIs.
 • Public institutions will gain credibility and support, as they will be perceived as successfully man- aging the current technological challenges and being able to stay above opportunistic and selfish oligarchs.
 • Birth rates will grow as people regain their faith in society while hoping for a future where their children will use technology for their own well-being instead of being used by technology as if they were some kind of “disposable biological tool”.
 • A new culture based in hard work and personal responsibility will emerge, bringing economic and social development in many different and positive ways.

Relevant statistics
Regarding the ever accelerating technological development: https://www. weforum.org/stories/2023/02/this-timeline-charts-the-fast-pace-of-tech-trans formation-across- centuries/ About who are the real owners of big technological corporations: https://hcss. nl/report/power-and-influence-in-a-globalized-world/ Other relevant statistics are incorporated in foot notes 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

Predictive study
Given that too many variables are still undefined at this early stage, a predic tive study would be premature.

Conclusions, proposals and expected results
A transfer of a fair share of “real technological power” fr om their current own ers to common people must be made in order to balance the technological society we all live in. For this to success, the power transfer must be real, and of course well planned and managed. The countries that better do this power transfer will develop and prosper in a much solid way because their people will believe in themselves as a group, and they will be as a light in the dark for those who are unable to make this transition. So apart from social and economic gains, these pioneering countries will earn prestige and respect from everybody, and will pave the way to a new world wh ere mankind has learnt to manage technology in a wise way.