In the midst of waves of technology development we often fall prey to its emergent nature. Through iterative improvement, model changes and updates, are introduced to and adopt new behaviours.
There are two fascinating lines that intersect here that I think lawyers, legal tech developers and legal industry professionals need to be more attuned to as we move forward: the influence of technology on behaviour and the influence of law on behaviour.
The Law as Influence
When we think about Law, we think about boundaries, we think about lines that we cannot or should not cross if we want to maintain an acceptable position in the neighbourhood, community, city, state and society we take part in. When we think about Law, we may also contemplate “what is right” or “what is accepted” or “what is just”.
When we contemplate the development of the Law, we may think about “robustness”, filling gaps or loopholes that have been exploited, or responding to new realities as they become a cause of dissent between parties through long standing canon.
We may also closely tie the Law with the way it manifests tangibly before our eyes. That often shows up in the stating of the Law or enforcement of the Law that we see every day: speed signs, police presence, lines and markings, fences as examples.
As lawyers of course, we are privy to an additional layer of the Law: how it is questioned, debated, advocated and defended for, producing outcomes with the Law rather than only witnessing it in effect.
In this context I’d like to suggest that The Law as influence is generally seen as a deterrent. If it was a magic ball, it has a push effect - warning us away from misguided decisions, a “don’t touch me” energy if you will.
Whether it was intended that the abstraction of Law was supposed to be a deterrent is a question for philosophy, theology and the varied ideaologies that contend for pole position (which of course vary from place to place, culture to culture). In any case, it’s one way to think about how the Law is perceived, how it takes effect and therefore how it influences.
Technology as Influence
When we think about technology, we think about creating something new, we think of progress and improvement, we think about efficiency and streamlining, of discovery and invention. When we think about technology, we may also consider “the shiniest object” or “the powerful tool” or “the coolest gadget”.
When we think about the development of technology, we understand its core is “creativity”, drawing in from intangible ideas and alchemising it into a real thing, bringing about a better quality of life to society which can leverage it. There is something limitless about it something that is not about following rules and in some cases, about breaking them.
When we look for technology tangibly in the world, essentially we see new tools, new behaviours, new environments and new realities. It is viscerally more attractive to our attention as it displaces common or known practices with something novel, often with messaging to the effect of “better”, “faster” or “more efficient”.
In this context i’d like to suggest that Technology as influence is generally an attractant. If it was a magical ball it have a pull effect. It would whisper “hey, come have a look! Try this, it’s so cool”.
Whether it was intended that the abstraction of Technology was supposed to be an attractant is a similar question for philosophers, theologians, and a mix of ideologies that vie for pole position. In any case, it’s one way to capture how technology is perceived, how it affects us and therefore how it influences.
The Intersection
These two giants play with each other constantly, the way in which they do is fascinating and sometimes dangerous. Again, it is arguable whether this juxtaposition always existed but it has shown to be something we must pay attention to, particularly as technology begins to take leaps at a more exponential rate.
Here’s something to contextualise:
Technology essentially quantifies human behaviour. It brings more of the intangible into the physical realm, so we can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, use it.
It attempts at first to capture and (try to) make efficient, common (often repetitive) actions that are socially or culturally accepted. It then tries to introduce new behaviours to replace old ones, because that how we learn: there is no delete and start again, there is only replacing old habits with new ones.
Technology seemingly has the privilege of creating social effects without robust checks and balances because of the nature of its newness, we essentially don’t know what it will do across its second or third order effects. Or maybe we could guess, but that conversation isn’t something we are privy to when private companies who develop their technologies contemplate their goals and outcomes.
The best example (and warning) we have is FAANG (the term to describe the largest tech companies in the world: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) and Web 2.0.
Those companies (ironically founded, incorporated and headquartered in a state of the US) have a reach and influence globally far beyond their federal government. Sure, an argument can be made for the US Military Industrial Complex and their Intelligence agencies influence on the world - but in terms of direct and proportionate influence on people around the world daily well, you get the point.
Think about what we all use and consume, what it costs us, where our attention is drawn the most and what we will spend on in lieu of other things. It is safe to say this explosion of social media was founded and funded on an advertising model. The effects of it have become more glaring in recent years as we discover what it has done to our behaviour for as much as it has given access and expanded our horizons.
Imagine what your great grandparents had in terms of daily convenience, quality of life, accessibility and as a result life ambition.
Note the difference, how drastically it changed and how quickly.
As a result, Technology creates culture by encouraging certain behaviours over time or between generations where in the passage of mere decades we see a fundamentally different reality. Technology implementations are grossly underestimated as propagators of poor behaviours when not assessed against clear strategic goals, or against longer timelines.
And yet, how much of the “new” would we hinder if before it took effect in tangible product, we argued over its 2nd, 3rd (and so on) effects on the world.
Maybe that is the nature of one vs. the other, the forward momentum of technology and the restraint of the Law to find balance.
What a wonderful predicament (as lawyers, legal tech developers and legal industry professionals) to contemplate.
As we continue to increase our use, development and application of technology to our own processes, services and outcomes, we are holding in each hand simultaneously both the Law and Technology. Much more than contemplation is required.
We are active participants contributing to this unfolding reality.
A brief note on selling tech for vendors and buyers.
Getting people to buy is hard, but if we stoop low in the name of monetization - we create an ecosystem of deceptive, coercive behaviours that as humans we are all to happy to propagate.
Vendors, please make sure give thought to the behaviours you encourage with your sales pitch and technology implementations.
Buyers, don’t allow technology to take away from the integral strength that stems from our human nature. This service is and will continue to be human to human.
This was a free post from the Future of Law Lab.
Here’s what you missed this month:
Learnings from the Lab #2 - a write up and video summary breaking down one of the live workshop sessions I recently ran with some Industry experts at FutureLab.Legal.
Understanding No-Code (Part 2) - Exploring how lawyers can best leverage sandbox environments.
Tow the Line (Part 1) - Life is about balance, but there’s a difference between finding balance and towing the line. Which one are you doing? Are you ready to do better?
The future of law is in our hands 🔥
Q.