Conference diversity: need for balanced perspectives

I’ve always said we need a proper debate about key issues. Pity then to see how many one-sided panels there are at the upcoming CPDP conference in Brussels (often with panellists who criticise social media bubbles or deplore lack of diversity of opinion in other contexts).

Diversity on panels is important, and perhaps we need to start viewing it more broadly, especially for large conferences that are about the law and policy, and where things might go from here. In that regard, diversity of *opinion* is what we need as well.

In the context of small, private conferences, I get it. But for large ones, like in the data protection world CPDP, Privacy Symposium or IAPP conferences, maybe we need to demand from organisers that they aim for a bit more balance, in particular if there is a contested topic being discussed.

Balance can be within one panel or through the presence of other panels presenting a different perspective.
But we need diversity of perspectives.
Regulators need it to be able to be seen not as zealots but as independent, impartial regulators. Legislators need it to be able to assess the pros and cons.

For instance, I had proposed a fantastic panel on user interfaces & “dark patterns” two years ago at a conference, with different perspectives (pro-business & pro-consumer, regulator, academia, industry, etc., all in a stellar 4-person panel), to allow for a great exchange on the topic. The topic was rejected, and ultimately the conference had many one-sided or vague panels instead. Since then, I have fortunately been able to organise or speak on a few panels with different perspectives, but I see with the upcoming CPDP conference that it remains a big issue.

Perhaps on both sides of a debate we need to make more of a conscious effort to engage in a proper discussion in public appearances – and organisers of large conferences must do their part too to ensure that this is possible.

[And I say this as someone who has apparently been proposed as co-panellist but rejected by higher-ups for having another perspective for certain topics.]

GDPR privacy