the film is populated with a bunch of former high-ranking tech employees and executives (for the most part) who have seemingly seen the light: their tech tools are destroying the world.
except there’s a massive problem with their framing.
the technological determinism of silicon valley, that now pervades neoliberal society, always presents technology as the primary actor: fb and google are brainwashing us, manipulating us, destroying democracy, dividing us, etc.
this is technodeterministic liberal propaganda.
these people once believed that technology was changing the world; they still do, but now it’s for ill instead of good.
and obviously it must be technology — because what else could be causing these massively negative social outcomes but technology?
(hm, i wonder...)
in the film, these tech folks and various politicians (in news clips), talk about how facebook and its algorithms are causing massive social division.
but this completely ignores the underlying economic conditions: four decades of neoliberalism, rising inequality, and corruption
one of the tech folks says that western democracies “are imploding in on each other — and what do they have in common?”
facebook/tech is the implication, but that ignores the inequality, unaffordability, low wages, unresponsive political systems, etc.
they say this is all new — technology is causing this division, fake news, different realities — but they have little historical knowledge.
the “yellow journalism” and partisan press of the late 19th/early 20th century (the gilded age) served a similar role, fueled by inequality
the bicycle assertion that’s also made — that no one ever said bicycles would destroy society — is another example of this ignorance of history
they technodeterministic narratives are dehistoricized and self-serving — not just bolstering their new careers, but also not challenging either their own person views of the power of tech but also the broader systemic desire to ignore the consequences of economic inequality.
near the end, they start to think about the future.
some fear civil war, end of democracy, etc., again with the implication that tech is playing the lead role, not the underlying social and economic factors.
another says the internet has changed since the old days and has become like a shopping mall, but again, misses how this was an essential part of the commercialization of the web: to make it serve the needs of capital, deliver profits and corporate power.
others suggest that technologists have a “responsibility” to try to fix this, and suggest people take individual actions like deleting social media, and this will help to change things, ignoring how, again, these platforms are like this for economic reasons.
there is some suggestion of needing to understand the economic component and embrace regulation of the tech giants as a solution — but they are very much tweaks designed to limit the data and “surveillance” wrongs, not the more fundamental problems of capitalism.
i have little doubt the doc will convince a lot of people with little historical knowledge or critical understanding that what these smart, important people are saying about fb/google/tech is true — and that’s pretty worrying because it defines the problem in the wrong way.
it really shows that, for the most part, the solutions aren’t going to come from the former high-ranking liberal tech folks.
they will instead come from radicalized tech rank-and-file working with those outside tech with other perspectives to contribute.
and i really feel that the solutions will not come in the form of markets and regulation, but a better internet is ultimately a non-commercial one with public institutions controlling some things, cooperatives some others, and regular people experimenting with their own projects.
basically, bring on digital communism (as part of global communism, of course)
Pierre Poilievre says Canadians are too obsessed with race because of “wokeism” and agrees with Jordan Peterson that Canada essentially had to invent and import racism because it didn’t exist here before recent decades.
Canada is so fucked if this guy forms government.
Wondering what the Conservatives will do to social programs if they return to power under Poilievre?
He says all those “socialist policies” like public healthcare and the like are actually bad for the poor and redistribute toward the “super wealthy,” so they need to be cut.
Throughout the interview, you can see how Poilievre has deceptive but effective stories and cherrypicked stats that serve his agenda.
He’ll fabricate a narrative that government spending is what’s driving up home prices, to distract from developer and speculator profiteering.
Canadians are watching as Silicon Valley takes over the US government, but few realize Shopify executives are trying to bring a similar project to Canada — and the Conservative leader has started praising them for it.
Executives like Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke and President Harley Finkelstein spout increasingly right-wing opinions online, including opposition to unions, support for Trump’s threat of a 25% tariff, and right-wing arguments smears against migrants.
Meanwhile, Shopify COO Kaz Nejatian is a former Conservative staffer who founded and funds a far-right media organization aimed at reshaping the conversation in Canada to be more anti-migrant, racist, and transphobic.
For decades, internet politics was shaped by a cyberlibertarian perspective that obsessed about government while enabling the corporate dystopia we live in today.
The arrest of Pavel Durov and suspension of Twitter/X in Brazil is a shot across the bow in a wider fight to rein in the harms that have come from the cyberlibertarian approach to the internet. But it will not end there.
Last month, the Global Digital Justice Forum wrote that “the cyberlibertarian vision of yesteryears is at the root of the myriad problems confronting global digital governance today.” Globally, that view has a lot of support.
The AI boom requires massive data centers that consume enormous amounts of water and energy.
Tech CEOs have plans for hundreds more, but activists are fighting back to protect their communities and force us to ask who benefits from Silicon Valley’s future.disconnect.blog/ai-is-fueling-…
Everything we do online has a material footprint and people started becoming more aware of that during the crypto boom. But the AI hype of the past year is also far more resource-intensive than the applications it hopes to replace.
Amazon, Microsoft, and Google all have massive business selling computation as a service, meaning they’re all incentivized to increase the amount of computer resources we collectively use so those businesses keep growing—regardless of the social benefit.
Sam Altman’s vision for AI proliferation will require a lot more computation and the energy to power it.
He admitted it at Davos, but he said we shouldn’t worry: an energy breakthrough was coming, and in the meantime we could just geoengineer the planet. disconnect.blog/sam-altmans-se…
Over the past year, Altman ensured we were focused on the future by promising incredible AI benefits or scaring us with terrifying futures. That ensured OpenAI could capture the attention of lawmakers to share AI regulation. But now his story is shifting.
The media seized on his comments at Davos that AGI wouldn’t change as much as he thought, even though he was still boosting the tech. In his new story, the fears are gone and AI adoption must accelerate because he imagines the benefits to be enormous.
As Hyperloop One shuts down, we need to admit that the Hyperloop was never meant to be built.
Its goal was never to transform transportation for the masses, but to stop or delay high-speed rail from reaching North America. And sadly, it succeeded. disconnect.blog/p/the-hyperloo…
It’s been ten years since Elon Musk first laid out the white paper, and it never really went anywhere. It was an idea that survived so long because of cheap money and is finally dying now that interest rates have made such useless projects untenable.
Hyperloop emerged during a big debate around California’s plans for high-speed rail, where Musk adopted the dogged conservative opposition designed to protect the interests of automakers and airlines who saw their profits threatened.