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)
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.
Grimes was interviewed in Wired and she truly is unhinged. Elon has a real knack for making dumb people think they’re brilliant.
Apparently she’s writing a book called “Transhumanism for Babies.” 🫠
Another of her projects is a toy that uses ChatGPT to converse with people. Grimes says it’s to help mothers because life is hard for them. Forget social programs, maternity leave, child benefits; just give them some tech trash some idiot thinks sounds interesting.
Taking about Elon and the “trans thing,” Grimes says he’s really just concerned about birth rates and trans people maybe not having kids. Her solution isn’t to challenge his deep transphobia, but to suggest some fantasy fertility tech!
For years, the media was happy to build up Elon Musk and convince the public of his genius. But now it’s impossible to ignore who he really is.
The media failed us, and now they must reckon with how they covered him and the wider tech industry. disconnect.blog/p/the-medias-f…
The media is constantly publishing stories about Musk’s most inane tweets for clicks, rarely giving the context that he almost never follows through on what he says. Those stories are a product of the media’s long informal partnership with Musk.
Elon Musk is a man, but he’s also a character he created with the media — and which he began to believe he really was. The myth build around him was designed to captivate the public, but also to help him succeed.
Apple’s Vision Pro headset is a $3500 product designed to isolate you from your environment and strap a screen to your face so you’re constantly making money for tech companies.
Vision Pro is designed be an “augmented reality” headset so you’re not completely closed off from the environment around you, but it still feels incredibly isolating despite Apple’s attempts to make it look sleek and futuristic.
The pandemic showed us how tech companies profit immensely when we’re isolated and forced to spend more time staring at screens. The entire push to roll out headsets can’t be separated from that reality: they want us to always be looking at screens.