The objective of any deliberation is to conduct a well-mannered discussion on a pressing issue and to find personal beliefs and connections on and with the topic through constructing possible solutions with the group. This discussion, even though many of its themes may be initially controlled by the moderators, still has a quality of spontaneity to it. Unique viewpoints and solutions can be brought forward by any participant and how the audience and moderators react to these realizations further shape the progression of the discussion.
I believe that my group’s deliberation required spontaneity from the moderators to bring forward additional statements for the discussion. Once our moderators began to utilize this practice, the discussion became deeper and applicable to other topics related to facial recognition technologies. I believe that this technique reinforced our deliberation’s ability to ensure mutual comprehension and consider other ideas and experiences. Through asking participants to clarify their points on facial recognition technologies and then apply them to other fields of the tech industry, both parties were able to garner a detailed understanding of the group’s beliefs on facial recognition and technology as a whole. Although the moderators in our group felt that generational differences surrounding opinions on technology and privacy may not have been addressed through our deliberation, I felt that our conversation with our peers still brought about a consensus on key values and stakes present at the center of the facial recognition controversies, while also properly weighing pros and cons. In retrospect, it seemed that the participants had an overwhelming support for the benefits of facial recognition systems, compared to the topic of compromised privacy. I would have liked to see more discussion in support of privacy concerns, but I still commend the audience for agreeing on its prevalence to our topic. Privacy was not wholly neglected during our discussion, but it definitely was upstaged by the modern trait of convenience. I think that the discussion could have been lengthened and enriched if more dissents on this topic were put forward by the audience.
Even with these present shortcomings, I felt that our group moderated the deliberation in an appropriate manner. We provided the audience with a strong foundation with our issue introductions and issue guide. During the discussion, we upheld the moderators’ primary duty of respect towards participants, while also allocating enough time for people with demonstrated interest to speak. Several members of the audience primarily carried the discussion during some parts of the deliberation, but we were still able to get constructive anecdotes from other members of the audience throughout the deliberation.
If I were a repeat this deliberation, I would make several changes to our approach. I would ask the audience to further consider the issues surrounding privacy and the increasing presence of technology in our lives. As several people stated in our deliberation, there is a widely held belief amongst younger generations that the internet and the technology industry inevitably have access to any user’s personal information. While this claim may be true, it does not make it right. I felt that our deliberation put forward viable solutions to address facial recognition concerns, but they may not have been the best for preserving autonomy in an age of digital uniformity.