Why digital technology should put people first

Better Technology: Putting People First in Cyberspace
Francine Berman
MIT Press (2026)

Computer scientist Francine Berman has helped shape the digital world for decades. In Better Technology, an academic at the University of Massachusetts Amherst argues that technology should serve the public good. The book is a timely manifesto for putting people’s well-being at the centre of conversations about technological progress.

Why should digital technology be treated as critical infrastructure?

When we think about critical infrastructure such as roads, power grids and financial systems, we expect safeguards to protect citizens. These protections are far from perfect: bridges collapse, power grids fail and financial crises occur. However, because these systems support our daily lives, we continue to invest heavily in monitoring, safeguarding and regulating them.

Digital technologies now play a similarly central role, but we often treat them differently. We spend a great deal of time defending ourselves from digital systems and asking whether we can trust them, rather than expecting them to be trustworthy and well managed.

If we start treating digital technologies as critical infrastructure, we are more likely to build them with safety, reliability and the public interest in mind from the beginning. That means stronger standards and clearer rules for how these technologies are developed and used. The goal is not to eliminate risk, but to take essential technologies seriously so that risk can be properly managed.

Are search engines and social media critical infrastructure?

I think search engines crossed that threshold a long time ago. As most information has moved online, search engines have become the primary way people find knowledge and make decisions. In that sense, they are infrastructure. We need food to maintain our bodies, and reliable information is necessary to maintain an information society.

The problem is that today’s information systems are primarily governed by corporate incentives. Search engines use algorithms to connect users with advertisers, often prioritising content according to commercial interests rather than the public interest. That does not mean they are inherently harmful, but it does mean that their impact is too significant to go without greater transparency and accountability.

The same applies to social media. Many important public announcements, political debates and cultural conversations now take place on these platforms. What was once communicated through press releases and public institutions is increasingly communicated through social networks. Social media has become an essential channel in people’s lives.

However, these platforms often lack the safeguards expected of critical infrastructure. Users face cyberbullying and predatory behaviour, while recommendation systems can draw people into narrow information environments through infinite scrolling. None of this is inevitable. These platforms are designed to maximise growth and engagement, and they have been highly successful at doing so. But design choices are choices. It is possible to create a system that is both profitable and protective.

Are social media companies taking responsibility for harm to users?

Probably a little bit of both. For example, Meta has reached financial settlements with some U.S. states that claim its products compromised children’s safety. However, as the company faces a range of legal and regulatory challenges, it is worth remembering that the significance of any one settlement depends on how it fits into the wider context.

One positive development is that people are increasingly demanding accountability from technology companies. What interests me most about these lawsuits is not the monetary penalties, but the product changes that Meta may be required to make. A meaningful question is whether a court settlement will lead to a redesign that reduces addictive features or gives users more control.

The published changes are not sufficient. These are small steps, but the fact that companies are beginning to be held accountable means they are more likely to develop better products in the future. That is what we really want.

Are artificial-intelligence products becoming addictive?

It is important to distinguish between AI and the products that use it. Artificial intelligence is a broad field. In their 2021 textbook Artificial Intelligence, computer scientists Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig describe AI along two dimensions: whether systems are designed to think or act, and whether they are intended to behave like humans or like rational agents.

This creates four broad categories of AI research. They involve distinct research challenges and remain an active area of AI development. Unfortunately, in popular discourse, AI has become a broad umbrella term, making it difficult to distinguish between genuinely useful applications and those that are not.

Which AI risks receive too much or too little attention?

Will AI disrupt or revolutionize social science?

The real risk arises when people start treating AI systems as if they have human qualities. We have seen troubling cases, particularly involving young people, in which individuals have sought companionship from chatbots and received inadequate or harmful advice. In some cases, the results were tragic. These risks require careful attention.