The Rise Of Technoauthoritarianism
This article appears in the Read a Story Today newsletter. Register here .
If we were to summarize the dominant ideology of Silicon Valley in an anecdote, we might first look at Mark Zuckerberg, who nearly 20 years ago sat under the blue light of his computer talking to a friend about how his new website Facebook, a business he had access. to a lot of personal information about your friends;
Zuckerberg. Yes, if you need information about someone at Harvard.
Zuckerberg. Just ask.
Zuckerberg. I have over 4000 emails. email, picture, address, SNS
friend that? How did you do it?
Zuckerberg. People just posted.
Zuckerberg. I do not know why.
Zuckerberg. "They trust me."
Zuckerberg .
That conversation, later revealed in leaked chat logs, was quickly followed by another equally revealing, albeit more polite one. During a famous Christmas party in 2007, Zuckerberg met Sheryl Sandberg, his future chief operating officer, who, together with Zuckerberg, transformed the platform into a digital imperialist superpower. There, Zuckerberg, who adopted the "Company on Earth" mantra in Facebook's early days, explained to Sandberg that he wanted every American with Internet access to have a Facebook account. For Sandberg, who once told a colleague that "great organizations had put her on this planet," it turned out to be the perfect mission.
Learn more in this episode and find the next story to read.
Facebook (now Meta) has become the symbol of everything that is wrong in Silicon Valley. Its beneficial role in the spread of global misinformation represents an ongoing crisis. It's also reminiscent of the company's secret mood manipulation experiment in 2012, which deliberately sampled what users saw in their news feeds to measure how Facebook could influence people's emotional states without their knowledge. Or his involvement in inciting the 2017 Myanmar genocide. Or using it as a club to plan and organize the January 6, 2021 uprising. (In Facebook's early days, Zuckerberg included "revolutions" among his interests. When had a business card that said "I'm an SEO bitch ").
However, the way Facebook does business remains largely the norm for the tech industry as a whole, even as other social platforms (TikTok) and technological developments (artificial intelligence) eclipse Facebook in terms of cultural relevance.
To worship at the altar on a large scale and convince yourself that you must make historic decisions on behalf of a world population that did not choose you and cannot share your values or lack thereof, you will have to give up many things. . discomfort, modesty and nuances in them. Many Silicon Valley titans have repeatedly made similar concessions. YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram (owned by Meta), and Twitter (which Elon Musk insists is called X) have done as much damage to individual rights, civil society, and global democracy as Facebook. With generative AI currently being developed in Silicon Valley, we should be prepared for this damage to multiply in the coming years.
The behavior of these companies and the people who run them is often hypocritical, greedy and status-obsessed. But behind this mercantilism lies something more dangerous, a clear and coherent ideology that is rarely called what it is: an authoritarian technocracy. As Silicon Valley's most powerful companies have matured, this ideology has only become stronger, more hypocritical, more delusional and, in the face of mounting criticism, more offensive.
The new technocrats ostentatiously use language that appeals to the values of the Enlightenment: reason, progress, freedom, but in reality they lead an antidemocratic and antiliberal movement. Many of them claim to unconditionally support freedom of expression, but retaliate against those who say what they don't like. They are prone to eccentric beliefs. that all technological progress is necessarily and intrinsically good; that you should always build it, just because you can; that the uninterrupted flow of information has the greatest value, regardless of the quality of the information; that privacy is an obsolete concept; that we should welcome the day when artificial intelligence surpasses us. And, above all, its power should be unlimited. The systems they have created or are building to restructure communication, change people's social networks, introduce artificial intelligence into everyday life, etc., impose these beliefs on an unconsultated and generally uninformed population. All this, and they're still trying to perpetuate the absurd myth that they're demigods shaking in a bar.
Comparisons between Silicon Valley and Wall Street or Washington are common, and you can see why. They are all centers of power and they are all magnets for people whose ambitions too often exceed their human ambitions. But Silicon Valley's influence easily surpasses that of Wall Street and Washington. It is changing society more profoundly than any center of power since perhaps the New Deal. Many Americans are rightly concerned about the rise of authoritarianism among MAGA Republicans, but they risk losing sight of another growing force in illiberalism: super-powered, rage-prone tech bosses.
The Shakespearean drama that unfolded at OpenAI late last year shows how the worst of Facebook's "move fast and break things" mentality has been internalized and celebrated in Silicon Valley. OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating artificial intelligence around the world serving the public good. It was based on the belief that the technology was too powerful and dangerous to be developed for purely commercial purposes.
But in 2019, when the technology began to surprise even the people working on it with the speed of its development, the company opened a commercial division to raise more capital. First Microsoft invested a billion dollars, then many billions more. Then last fall, the company's CEO, Sam Altman, was fired and then quickly rehired, marking the end of OpenAI's previous defenses against the company that ran the country. Those who wanted to leave Altman reportedly believed he was putting the pace of development before security. But Microsoft's response, offering to bring in Altman and someone else from OpenAI to rebuild its team, set off a game of chicken that led to Altman's reinstatement. The entire incident was confusing and Altman may have been the right man for the job, but the point was clear. the desire for scale and profit has decisively outweighed considerations of safety and public responsibility.
Silicon Valley continues to attract many talented people fighting the good fight and working to create the best possible version of a more connected, data-rich global society. Even the worst companies have created great tools. But at this scale, tools are also manipulation and control systems. They promise society, but they sow division. They say they defend the truth but they spread lies; Get wrapped up in concepts like empowerment and freedom, but stay tuned for us. Prevailing values tend to take away our options and keep us dependent on our channels.
The theoretical promise of artificial intelligence is as promising as social media once was, and as dazzling as the architects of its most ambitious projects. In fact, artificial intelligence can cure many diseases. This could really change science and unlock lost knowledge. Except Silicon Valley, experiencing its worst technocratic impulses, is following a script designed to massively expand and monopolize social media. OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and other companies at the forefront of artificial intelligence are not focused on areas of great social or epistemological need and certainly do not operate with transparency or discretion. Instead, they strive to build faster and maximize profits.
None of this will happen without the underlying technocratic philosophy of inevitability, that is, the idea that if you can build something new, you should do it. "I think in a well-functioning world this should be a government project," Altman told colleague Ross Andersen last year, referring to OpenAI's efforts to develop artificial general intelligence. But Altman still intended to continue building it himself. Or, as Zuckerberg told the New Yorker years ago: “Isn't it inevitable that a huge social network of people will emerge? ...If we didn't do it, someone else would.
Technocracy first flourished as a political ideology after World War I among a small group of New York scientists and engineers who wanted a new social structure to replace representative democracy by transferring power to a technological elite. Although his movement suffered a political defeat. In the end, people liked President Franklin D. American poet Ezra Pound's modernist motto, "Make it new," could easily become a mantra for technocrats. At the same time there was the Italian Futurist movement, led by figures such as the poet FT Marinetti, who used maxims such as "Militancy, not form" and "Creation, not contemplation."
For both technocrats and futurists, the ethos was action as an end in itself. “We are not content to wander through a park of dark cypresses, over dilapidated ruins and moss-covered antiquities,” Marinetti said in a 1929 speech. “We believe that the only worthy tradition in Italy is to never have a tradition.” Famous futurists turned their enthusiasm for technology, action and speed into fascism. Marinetti followed the Futurist Manifesto (1909) with the Fascist Manifesto (1919). His friend Pound admired Benito Mussolini and collaborated with his regime by hosting a radio program in which the poet preached fascism, praised Mein Kampf and also praised Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The evolution from futurism to fascism was not inevitable. Many of Pound's friends began to fear him or think he had gone mad, but he shows how a cultural movement based on a radical rejection of tradition and history, tinged with resentment, can become a political ideology in times of social unrest. .
In October, venture capitalist and technocrat Marc Andreessen posted a stream-of-consciousness document on his company's website that he called the "Techno-Optimist Manifesto," a 5,000-word ideological cocktail eerily reminiscent of and specifically celebrating Italian futurists. Like Marinetti. In addition to being one of Silicon Valley's most powerful billionaire investors, Andreessen has a reputation for being callous and complacent, and despite the optimism of the title, the narrative seems driven in part by a sense of resentment toward people. . the technology developed by him and his predecessors is no longer “celebrated as it should be.” It is a revealing document that reflects the worldview that he and his fellow technocrats promote.
Andresen writes that “there are no material problems,” including those caused by technology, that “cannot be solved by complementary technologies.” He writes that technology must not only constantly evolve, but also always accelerate its progress, “to ensure that the upward spiral of technocapital continues forever.” And he denounces what he calls anti-technology campaigns under names like “technological ethics” and “existential risk.”
Or take what could be considered the Apostles' Creed of his new political movement;
We believe that intelligence and energy should be transferred through a positive feedback loop and continue indefinitely...We believe in adventure. Embark on a hero's journey, challenge the status quo, chart uncharted territories, slay dragons, and return loot to our community...
We believe in nature, but we also believe in overcoming it . We are not primitive people who cower in fear of lightning. We are great predators. Lightning works for us.
Andreessen names several "patron saints" of his movement, including Marinetti. He quotes the Futurist Manifesto , substituting Marinetti's "poetry" for "technology":
Beauty only exists in struggle. There is no masterpiece that does not have an aggressive character. Technology must become a brutal attack on the forces of the unknown to force them to bow before man.
It should be noted that Andresen's manifesto is not a fascist document, but an extremist one. It takes the reasonable position that technology in general has greatly improved human life, and inverts it to reach the absurd conclusion that any attempt to slow technological development under any circumstances is despicable. This position, viewed without cynicism, only makes sense as a religious belief and in practice only serves to absolve him and the other Silicon Valley giants of any moral or civic obligation to do anything other than create new things that make them rich, no matter what. what happens . social costs or history. Andreessen also reveals a list of enemies and "zombie ideas" that he encourages his followers to defeat, including "institutions" and "traditions."
“Our enemy,” writes Andreessen, “is the omniscient, authoritative worldview of the expert who dabbles in abstract theories, grandiose beliefs, social engineering, who is out of touch with the real world, deluded, unchosen and irresponsible, playing God. with everyone's lives. "Otherwise, you will be completely isolated from the consequences.
The irony is that this description fits Andreessen and the rest of the Silicon Valley elite very well. The world they have created over the past two decades is undoubtedly a world of meaningless social engineering, with no consequences for its creators, who impose their own abstract theories and strange beliefs on all of us.
Some of the individual principles expressed by Andresen in his manifesto are unacceptable. But general radicalism, given its position and power, should fix things. Key Silicon Valley figures, including Musk, have clearly warmed to illiberal ideas in recent years. Donald Trump's vote share in Silicon Valley was 23% in 2020, up from 20% in 2016.
The main dangers of authoritarian technocracy right now are not political, at least in the traditional sense. However, a select few already have some degree of authoritarian control to set the rules and cultural norms of a digital world that can be as powerful as political power.
In 1961, in his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the country of the dangers of impending technocracy. “With due respect to scientific research and dissemination, we must remain attentive to the same and opposite danger: that public policy itself can become a prisoner of the scientific and technological elite.” The task of statecraft is to build, balance and integrate these and other forces, old and new, into our democratic system, always seeking the highest goals of our free society.”
Eight years later, the country's first computers were connected to the previous Arpanet network, which became widespread in 1993. At that time, Silicon Valley was considered a utopia for ambitious and optimistic capitalists who wanted to change the world with the help of a bureaucracy and weak traditions at the speed of the Internet (14.4 kilobytes per second). Initially, this culture also had its drawbacks, but figuratively it was a clear American path, leading to transformations, sometimes even to surprisingly beautiful equipment and software.
For a long time I was typically on the technical regulation end, on the Andisen end of the spectrum. He believed that the social network can still be a pure good and, at the same time, will be sufficient to conquer the values that best serve the public interests. I opposed the opinion that the creation of the social network is generally necessary, also because I did not know (and was still convinced) that the government could do it without damaging (the European regulatory model, including laws such as: oblivion. This is (I deeply regret that this contradicts the protection of the free press in the United States and constitutes a threat to the right to public knowledge.) I would prefer to think of market competition as technological improvement and the ability to improve society.
However, in recent years it has become clear that regulation was necessary, especially as the rise of technocrats indicates that Silicon Valley leaders simply will not work in public. We must do a lot to protect children from the dangers of social networks, eliminate monopolies and algopolises, etc. At the same time, I believe that one agreement will not be enough to significantly counteract the cultural development of the new technocrats.
Universities should regain leadership positions in the development of technologies that change the world for the benefit of humanity. (Harvard, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology may invest in creating a consortium for such efforts. Their donations total about $110 billion.)
Individuals should lead too. You may not be able to completely abandon social media or abandon software to monitor your workplace. Maybe you don't even want to give up these things. But there is unusual power in defining ideals, and we can all do it for ourselves. For our true friends in real life; for our schools; For our symbolic places. It would be reasonable to develop more complex rules of thumb for discussing and making decisions about how we use invasive technologies in interpersonal relationships and in our communities. This should include problems with existing standards related to YouTube shows and usage, in the hands of teenagers around the world on smartphones, as well as a widespread abandonment of privacy. People who believe we all deserve the best should lead those efforts.
Our children are not collections of data awaiting quantitative evaluation, to be looked at and sold. Our intellectual product is not just an AI study guide, which will be used for following and plagiarism. Our life was created not to optimize through the screen, but to live it, all our chaos, trees in bathtubs, a night bath and adventures. We have the best options, if we don't look we don't click "like" and we browse, browse, browse.
Technology is the key to improving the world. But first we must describe the world as we want to see it, the problems we want to solve in the public interest that contributes to human dignity, equality, freedom, privacy, health and happiness. And we must insist that the heads of the institutions that represent us adults and children use technologies to reflect what is good for people and society, and not just what enriches technocrats.
We do not need to live in a world that creates us new technocrats. We must not agree with their increasing attempts and project of data production. Each of us has the freedom of freedom.
There is no more "building because we can." There are no longer algorithmic ones. An infrastructure will no longer be created that makes people less influential and more controlling. We vote for our attention every day; This is precious and desperate for those who will use it for our political interests and purposes. Don't leave it.
This article appeared in a print publication in March 2024 under the name “Silicon Valley Despot.”
