But now we find ourselves in a different place were human rights are challenged in a different way. We find ourselves in conditions of hard to perceive but nevertheless very real digital empire, where there are powers we don’t see, using techniques that we don’t quite understand, following laws that are not human laws, laws which are not made by states. We can see this faintly from the examples, from the way that China evaluates its citizens according to a point system, from the way that Silicon Valley makes available to people around the world tools of manipulation, from the way that the Russian Federation intervenes in other people’s elections. You in Europe have the tools, the intellectual tools to handle this. Frantz Fanon criticizing imperialism in Algeria makes the point that we are not about how but about why. He is also making a point for us in the 21st century. What the digital world does is it reduces us to our most predictable and simplest responses, it turns us to caricatures of ourselves, turns us into instruments of faraway commercial and political entities that we can’t even see. It turns us into how creatures instead of why creatures. Or consider the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski who said: remember, humanity itself is a human category. If the decisions are not being made by humans, we can’t expect that the category of humanity will be with us. Or consider the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin who said that when you believe a lie you are turned into an object. But what if the lie that you believe in is told to you by an object? Can we expect the object to feel morally responsible? You have the tools, you need the time. Simone Weil said: What we need is warm silence, and what we get is icy tumult. You can have the warm silence if you choose, the European Union, unlike any other entity in the world, has made positive progress towards digital human rights. What I’d like to point out is that only the European Union can do it, for this reason: if you happen to live in a country, even a big, important country like the United States, where an important decision, let’s say a referendum or presidential election is decided by, or visible influenced by a digital campaign, the people who win are never going to investigate. This is already the world that we are living in, where political systems that you know and respect, like the British or the American cannot investigate themselves, because it has already happened to them. Only the European Union can do it, because it’s not a national political system. What can it do? Four things. There are at least four ways that the European Union can protect – I’ll call it: – humanity. Because there is only really one us and them: humanity is the us. The first is, anti-monopoly. The American companies are too big and the American state hasn’t been able to handle it. The second is, education. The German philosopher, Edith Stein – who taught philosophy in Germany for just as long as she could until that became impossible –, the German philosopher Edith Stein who was killed at Auschwitz, which is here to my right, said that there is an objective connection between education and humanity. Should we really, in Germany, or Austria, or Poland, or elsewhere were this is being contemplated, should we really entrust the education of our children to things that are not human? Should that happen? Perhaps we should wait in Europe. Perhaps we shouldn’t do exactly what the Americans do, perhaps we should just not put the tablets in the classroom, at all, ever.