The Path Forward for Responsible Tech

By Deb Donig, Siegel Research Fellow at All Tech Is Human

“The path forward lies not in predicting the future, but in actively shaping it through strategic action, coalition building, and unwavering commitment to responsible technology development that serves human values and protects user interests, regardless of the regulatory environment.”

When tempted to speculate about the future, as those concerned about emergent technologies whose progression and impact lack precedent so frequently find themselves, it is wise to remember that prophecy is unwise in journalism, and prognostication is the scourge of scholarship. We don't really know anything concrete about what's ahead – we're going to make all kinds of pronouncements about what this country is, and what this world is, and the truth is we're not really going to know with certainty.

We don't know what the incoming administration of the next four years will look like, and what impact its views on technological products will enact as consequences of those views, and what kind of world will emerge as a result. Yet, it seems almost inevitable that this political shift will have significant consequences for the future of responsible approaches to technology because there are some things we do already know.

Here is what we know, and here is what we may reasonably foresee emerging, given what we know:

The incoming administration has already promised to repeal what the campaign has called a "dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI Innovation," or what the previous administration had envisioned as an extension of existing civil rights legislation into the development of AI. The specific form and execution of this rollback is unclear, but it is prominently displayed as part of the administration's published platform.

That the campaign received significant financial contributions by and the backing of prominent technologists from Silicon Valley, figures known for their anti-regulatory stances, their disdain for trust and safety approaches, and for their resistance to movements that seek to reform technological culture in service of approaches to innovation centered on equity, inclusion, and human rights means that the administration will be animated by both advice from, and obligations to, the tech industry, and more specifically, these particular interests and their companies. The administration will be beholden to, and surrounded by, these figures and their interests. If the second term resembles the first, the administration will provide favor to those who have demonstrated their loyalty and govern in a way that will result in enriching its allies.

The combination of unified legislative and executive branches, with the addition of a conservative judiciary branch that has already demonstrated an anti-regulatory approach as central to its approach to adjudication, makes it unlikely that regulation or legislation will emerge to temper the tech industry's trajectory.

It's impossible to predict precise consequences.

In 2016, the previous administration's election elevated concerns about the state, and possible complicity, of technological products and culture. This concern tipped the balance of public perception about the industry into a "techlash," or a backlash against the harmful consequences of tech products and cultures. It was the public concern and critique, not legislation or regulatory efforts, that led to a shift in the industry in which companies hired a first wave of trust and safety experts, instantiated DEI teams, and initiated widely publicized corporate responsibility programs, introducing a new workforce of responsible tech workers into its ranks.

But unlike 2016, the 2024 election had as its pillar the specific ambitions of foreclosing government participation in this area, and the incoming administration's advisory team is indebted to the interests of Big Tech and antagonistic toward the responsible tech culture that has developed in the wake of the 2016 election.

To the extent that those working in areas of Responsible Technology are doing so in the context of governmental roles, or to the extent that companies have hired Responsible Tech workers in anticipation of future regulation or to ensure that companies are meeting governmental standards for safety and civil/human rights, these jobs may now be precarious, and hiring for them may shrink within the tech industry itself.

Yet there are paths forward.

Those working in Responsible Technology can focus on building strong internal coalitions within their organizations, documenting the business value of Trust and Safety initiatives, and developing metrics that demonstrate how responsible practices impact user trust and retention. Industry professionals should consider strengthening their skill sets to include business strategy and risk management, while maintaining strong networks with colleagues across companies to share best practices.

Without regulatory requirements enforcing Trust and Safety, companies that make clear their commitment to consumer protections, to responsible innovation, and to human values may win in a market where customers must decide for themselves, in the absence of enforced industry standards, which company they want to hand over their data and dollars. In a business arena where people care about whether companies reflect their values, and in a world where the harms of tech practices are becoming clear, not just on a societal level but for individual consumers threatened increasingly with data theft, financial scams, or predatory uses of Generative AI, consumers may prefer companies that make trust and safety a central concern.

Donors may see a renewed call to action to fund work committed to developing possibilities for thinking about human-values-centered approaches to technology and creating public calls for accountability that tech companies may take seriously, as consumer demands. So too is there an opportunity in this moment for coalition building across civil society.

Within industry, workers can build internal coalitions, focusing on network formation within organizations to maintain a focus on responsible technology practices. Those already in industry can distinguish themselves in so doing, and even carve out expertise. So too can we shift our focus to developing metrics showing how responsible tech practices impact user trust and retention; companies are almost always interested in pursuit that serve their financial best interests. So far, attempts to document the impact of ethical or responsible interventions have sometimes lagged behind the enthusiasm. Enthusiasm will get us only so far before we need to start showing evidence of impact.

Now is that time.

In addition to showing the benefits of responsible practices, industry workers and civil society can develop work showing the business costs resulting from irresponsible practices. Security breaches, privacy violations, and trust failures are not just harmful – they are expensive for companies. This work can build evidence-based arguments for maintaining strong safety standards regardless of regulatory requirements.

In a deregulatory environment, change is still possible. The results of this election are the result of a functioning democracy, which is to say, the will of the people. If the public decides to speak its will to companies, many will listen—it's in their best business interests to do so. In this moment, public interest organizations must play a role in educating and organizing the people so our voices can be heard. Those committed to responsible technology must focus on building strong coalitions between industry, civil society, and public interest organizations, while developing effective strategies for public education and engagement.

In moments like these, it’s easy to think of the incoming flow of what is to come as though it were a forecast, like the ones we use to check the weather. But the future is not like the weather. When we check the weather forecast, it is to see whether it will rain, or be windy, or whether there will be sun. And based on what the forecast tells us, we decide whether or not to carry an umbrella, or a pair of sunglasses, or a heavy jacket. But the future is not like the weather; we can’t change whether or not it will rain, but we can change the future.

The path forward lies not in predicting the future, but in actively shaping it through strategic action, coalition building, and unwavering commitment to responsible technology development that serves human values and protects user interests, regardless of the regulatory environment.

Deb Donig is a Siegel Research Fellow at All Tech Is Human. She is also a Lecturer UC Berkeley’s School of Information in the MA in Data Science Program, co-founder of the Cal Poly Ethical Technology Initiative, and the host of “Technically Human,” a podcast where she talks with major thinkers, writers, and industry-leading technologists about the relationship between humans and the technologies we create.