The Atlantic Warns of a Rising 'Authoritarian Technocracy' (theatlantic.com) 70
In the behavior of tech companies, the Atlantic's executive editor warns us about "a clear and coherent ideology that is seldom called out for what it is: authoritarian technocracy. As the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley have matured, this ideology has only grown stronger, more self-righteous, more delusional, and — in the face of rising criticism — more aggrieved."
The new technocrats are ostentatious in their use of language that appeals to Enlightenment values — reason, progress, freedom — but in fact they are leading an antidemocratic, illiberal movement. Many of them profess unconditional support for free speech, but are vindictive toward those who say things that do not flatter them. They tend to hold eccentric beliefs.... above all, that their power should be unconstrained. The systems they've built or are building — to rewire communications, remake human social networks, insinuate artificial intelligence into daily life, and more — impose these beliefs on the population, which is neither consulted nor, usually, meaningfully informed. All this, and they still attempt to perpetuate the absurd myth that they are the swashbuckling underdogs.
The article calls out Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto for saying "We believe in adventure... rebelling against the status quo, mapping uncharted territory, conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community..." (The Atlantic concludes Andreessen's position "serves only to absolve him and the other Silicon Valley giants of any moral or civic duty to do anything but make new things that will enrich them, without consideration of the social costs, or of history.")
The article notes that Andreessen "also identifies a list of enemies and 'zombie ideas' that he calls upon his followers to defeat, among them 'institutions' and 'tradition.'" But the Atlantic makes a broader critique not just of Andreessen but of other Silicon Valley elites. "The world that they have brought into being over the past two decades is unquestionably a world of reckless social engineering, without consequence for its architects, who foist their own abstract theories and luxury beliefs on all of us..." None of this happens without the underlying technocratic philosophy of inevitability — that is, the idea that if you can build something new, you must. "In a properly functioning world, I think this should be a project of governments," [Sam] Altman told my colleague Ross Andersen last year, referring to OpenAI's attempts to develop artificial general intelligence. But Altman was going to keep building it himself anyway. Or, as Zuckerberg put it to The New Yorker many years ago: "Isn't it, like, inevitable that there would be a huge social network of people? ... If we didn't do this someone else would have done it."
The article includes this damning chat log from a 2004 conversation Zuckerberg had with a friend:
Zuckerberg: If you ever need info about anyone at Harvard.
Zuckerberg: Just ask.
Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
Friend: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me"
Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks.'
But the article also reminds us that in Facebook's early days, "Zuckerberg listed 'revolutions' among his interests." The main dangers of authoritarian technocracy are not at this point political, at least not in the traditional sense. Still, a select few already have authoritarian control, more or less, to establish the digital world's rules and cultural norms, which can be as potent as political power...
[I]n recent years, it has become clear that regulation is needed, not least because the rise of technocracy proves that Silicon Valley's leaders simply will not act in the public's best interest. Much should be done to protect children from the hazards of social media, and to break up monopolies and oligopolies that damage society, and more. At the same time, I believe that regulation alone will not be enough to meaningfully address the cultural rot that the new technocrats are spreading.... We do not have to live in the world the new technocrats are designing for us. We do not have to acquiesce to their growing project of dehumanization and data mining. Each of us has agency.
No more "build it because we can." No more algorithmic feedbags. No more infrastructure designed to make the people less powerful and the powerful more controlling. Every day we vote with our attention; it is precious, and desperately wanted by those who will use it against us for their own profit and political goals. Don't let them.
The article calls out Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto for saying "We believe in adventure... rebelling against the status quo, mapping uncharted territory, conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community..." (The Atlantic concludes Andreessen's position "serves only to absolve him and the other Silicon Valley giants of any moral or civic duty to do anything but make new things that will enrich them, without consideration of the social costs, or of history.")
The article notes that Andreessen "also identifies a list of enemies and 'zombie ideas' that he calls upon his followers to defeat, among them 'institutions' and 'tradition.'" But the Atlantic makes a broader critique not just of Andreessen but of other Silicon Valley elites. "The world that they have brought into being over the past two decades is unquestionably a world of reckless social engineering, without consequence for its architects, who foist their own abstract theories and luxury beliefs on all of us..." None of this happens without the underlying technocratic philosophy of inevitability — that is, the idea that if you can build something new, you must. "In a properly functioning world, I think this should be a project of governments," [Sam] Altman told my colleague Ross Andersen last year, referring to OpenAI's attempts to develop artificial general intelligence. But Altman was going to keep building it himself anyway. Or, as Zuckerberg put it to The New Yorker many years ago: "Isn't it, like, inevitable that there would be a huge social network of people? ... If we didn't do this someone else would have done it."
The article includes this damning chat log from a 2004 conversation Zuckerberg had with a friend:
Zuckerberg: If you ever need info about anyone at Harvard.
Zuckerberg: Just ask.
Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
Friend: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me"
Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks.'
But the article also reminds us that in Facebook's early days, "Zuckerberg listed 'revolutions' among his interests." The main dangers of authoritarian technocracy are not at this point political, at least not in the traditional sense. Still, a select few already have authoritarian control, more or less, to establish the digital world's rules and cultural norms, which can be as potent as political power...
[I]n recent years, it has become clear that regulation is needed, not least because the rise of technocracy proves that Silicon Valley's leaders simply will not act in the public's best interest. Much should be done to protect children from the hazards of social media, and to break up monopolies and oligopolies that damage society, and more. At the same time, I believe that regulation alone will not be enough to meaningfully address the cultural rot that the new technocrats are spreading.... We do not have to live in the world the new technocrats are designing for us. We do not have to acquiesce to their growing project of dehumanization and data mining. Each of us has agency.
No more "build it because we can." No more algorithmic feedbags. No more infrastructure designed to make the people less powerful and the powerful more controlling. Every day we vote with our attention; it is precious, and desperately wanted by those who will use it against us for their own profit and political goals. Don't let them.
- The article specifically recommends "challenging existing norms about the use of apps and YouTube in classrooms, the ubiquity of smartphones in adolescent hands, and widespread disregard for individual privacy. People who believe that we all deserve better will need to step up to lead such efforts."
- "Universities should reclaim their proper standing as leaders in developing world-changing technologies for the good of humankind. (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT could invest in creating a consortium for such an effort — their endowments are worth roughly $110 billion combined.)"
One oligarchy threatens another (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Their objection isn't that there's an emerging oligarchy, it's that it's not an oligarchy they can benefit from, as they do with the one it's replacing.
And the news media should certainly know that (and certainly does), given their history of things like manipulating the public, and government, even into starting wars [cato.org] and all. (Trigger alert for those with TDS [wikipedia.org]: The article admits Trump was (at least partially) right about something.)
Re: One oligarchy threatens another (Score:5, Interesting)
And since when do governments do things correctly? Look at that state of infrastructure around much of the world. Are laws passed for the benefit of society or for the benefits of elites? There is a housing shortage in much of the world. Why should we trust government with something new when it constrains the supply of urgently needed housing? It's gotten to the point that gen Z is being completely impoverished by artificially high rents and making buying a home only possible for a small fraction.
Ever consider that IP is responsible for a huge proportion of income inequality. Copyright is justified in terms of benefits to society only when it's about 7 years. Yet it keeps on growing. It now even applies to buildings. They want to even apply it to clothing. Our governments have completely failed us.
What I see is a battle of elites. Silicon Valley vs various governments. Such competition is healthy as it keeps power dispersed and allows for new ideas and groups to coalesce. I read a thesis that it was the war of religions in the 16th century and beyond that enabled the growth of the idea of democracy - elites were too busy fighting each other to stop new democratic ideas and groups from emerging.
When said and done, the social agenda of much of these companies is very similar to much of the government anyway. I'm surprised that elites care that much. They both support censorship and newer (last 30 years) progressive ideas. Maybe it's all about who is in charge, not what happens when they are.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If I want to avoid the technocracy, I can close my browser tab.
If I want to avoid the government, they will send people with guns to my home.
Re: One oligarchy threatens another (Score:4, Insightful)
If I want to avoid the government, they will send people with guns to my home.
This is America, plenty of people avoid the government just fine. What you can't do is live inside the US borders and take advantage of US society wile breaking it's laws and yes evading taxes is breaking the law.
If we don't like the laws that can be changed but nothing gets changed by avoiding interacting with the system.
Re: One oligarchy threatens another (Score:5, Interesting)
I've long thought that the right way to deal with sovereign citizen loons is to set up a border checkpoint at the edge of their property (closed, of course, since they always advocate that, with orders to shoot to kill anyone crossing without permission), and let them negotiate with the State Department for a treaty to allow them to use taxpayer funded roads to buy food.
In short, treat them exactly as what they claim they are, sovereign, no subject to, or protected by, US laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Closing your browser tab won't keep your neighbors from voting your money into their pockets, or voting your children into conscription into a foreign war.
Re: One oligarchy threatens another (Score:1)
Unless it's something made by Apple, especially an idevice. Then it's not just the browser tab that's authoritarian, it's the entire fucking thing. And worst of all, ifans are aware of this and they'd have it no other way. Just read their slashdot comments if you don't believe me, they're pretty open about the fact that they want apple to have complete control over everything they do with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people (I use the word loosely) have accepted that they're pathetic losers incapable of running their own lives, and need their betters to tell them what to do.
Such people have always existed, and always will. The details change, but the fundamental nature does not. This season, they're Appletards.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you replied to a different post than you tried to reply to. Since nothing in mine had anything to do with government doing things right, or otherwise.
Try to pay more attention next time.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to whenever you hear the media, esp. Faux and its competitors, talk about the "free market" and "democracy", replace that with oligarchy, because it isn't most of the politicians who are rich, are they, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Koch, Mr. Leo, etc, etc, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
So has Trump read the Constitution and actually understood it?
We sure didn't see any proof of that in his last term. Myth-making about the Constitution? Sure. Understanding of it, Nope.
Autocrat, autocrat which will we choose?
Re: (Score:1)
This must be irony (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are functioning properly according to the wishes of the oligarchy.
Governments do exactly what the oligarchs want... low taxes and lax regulation for the rich, screw everybody else to keep them poor and slaving away making profits for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Combining "properly functioning" and "governments" has got to be a joke.
If you believe having governments makes things bad, try living in places where there's none.
I suspect you wouldn't like the experience.
So, we need censorship to preserve democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Core Value (Score:3)
Are you sure you want that? (Score:2)
"Universities should reclaim their proper standing as leaders in developing world-changing technologies for the good of humankind" , a yes, the places that nobody can afford to go to, and are more known for gamma-letter sex parties and bullying/hazing that ends up with people hurt or dead, and seem to care more about football and partying than doing world-changing work.
Here's my offer/take. These companies are too big, uncompetitive (seeking acquisitions and mergers to prevent competition from being threate
transparent, Atlantic (Score:4, Insightful)
Say you really really really hate Elon Musk without openly setting you really really really hate Elon Musk.
No, I think a far more pernicious and corrosive force in western democracy is the absence of the Fourth Estate. That is, the enfolding of government and mass media into a single collusive ideological mass is vastly more likely to undercut (I'm very idealistically phrasing that in the subjunctive future...) fundamental faith that democracy functions here at all.
Re:transparent, Atlantic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:transparent, Atlantic (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole "profess free speech" thing is a pretty obvious dogwhistle. It's strange that people pretend this isn't the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the dog whistle is just your tinnitus.
So many things these days are called dog whistles that it becomes hard to have a long conversation about tangential topics without being accused of blowing in said whistle.
Re: (Score:2)
A metaphor is much more powerful than a simile.
Look it up.
Are you really so shallow as to believe something has to explicitly mention its subject, to be about it? Seriously? So you believe Animal Farm is about farming, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Say you really really really hate Elon Musk without openly setting you really really really hate Elon Musk.
Just because Entity A hates Entity B doesn't mean or imply that Entity B is not worthy of hate, nor that Entity A is wrong. I'm not saying Elon is or isn't worthy, just that "you just don't like him" is not now, nor has it ever been, a valid defense of anything.
No, I think a far more pernicious and corrosive force in western democracy is the absence of the Fourth Estate. That is, the enfolding of government and mass media into a single collusive ideological mass is vastly more likely to undercut (I'm very idealistically phrasing that in the subjunctive future...) fundamental faith that democracy functions here at all.
What, what? The media and the government are colluding? Remember not so long ago when "the government" was Trump's? And the media kept pointing out - day after day - the transgressions and lies committed by that government. Sure, now they're pre
Re:transparent, Atlantic (Score:5, Interesting)
Say you really really really hate Elon Musk without openly setting you really really really hate Elon Musk.
No, I think a far more pernicious and corrosive force in western democracy is the absence of the Fourth Estate. That is, the enfolding of government and mass media into a single collusive ideological mass is vastly more likely to undercut (I'm very idealistically phrasing that in the subjunctive future...) fundamental faith that democracy functions here at all.
The death of local reporters is certainly a concern.
But otherwise, I find it doubtful that the media has ever been more professional and diverse. For that golden era of media you look back to is it the 1900s when newspaper owners may have helped start a war with Spain [wikipedia.org] or the era of more "respectable" journalists who would generally all agree to ignore stories like Presidential affairs [history.com]?
It only seems worse now because due to the Internet you're able to hear more opposing narratives and perspectives than those offered by the news. Sometimes those other narratives are right, but usually they're wrong, but they've always existed. The only difference now is they have the ability to broadcast their views without the media.
Sigh. I’m getting old. (Score:5, Insightful)
And there’s always people who claim that this time it’s different, and for some reason this shiny new set of top dogs are especially bad, and the “new ideology” is somehow especially bad. This time around, it’s because the interwebs have somehow changed human existence in some sort of futurist-singularity manner.
No, it’s not different. This is an ancient story that repeats over and over. Every generation discovers sex and they think “wow this is awesome/interesting/scary/fascinating and it’s ALL BRAND NEW LOOK AT WHAT I INVENTED” while the oldsters quietly roll their eyes.
Our current generation of oligarchs are nothing special.
This will be followed up by several posts that claim the internet has changed human existence and this time around is special. Has the interent changed human existence? Sure. Last century it was the telephone. The century before it was industrialization. Sometime before that it was the printing press or the black plague. For the past thousand years, it’s been a constant stream of fundamental disruptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth over-concentration is not a symptom of a healthy free market, but a pretty serious failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There’s always a million people competing for every top-dog position, and a small few who make it to the top through a combination of talent, hard work, and always a massive helping of luck which they refuse to admit. The result is some tiny number of people wind up on a fast upwards trajectory or at the top, replacing the previous people at the top who are on the decline. Always. ALWAYS.
And there’s always people who claim that this time it’s different, and for some reason this shiny new set of top dogs are especially bad, and the “new ideology” is somehow especially bad. This time around, it’s because the interwebs have somehow changed human existence in some sort of futurist-singularity manner.
No, it’s not different. This is an ancient story that repeats over and over. Every generation discovers sex and they think “wow this is awesome/interesting/scary/fascinating and it’s ALL BRAND NEW LOOK AT WHAT I INVENTED” while the oldsters quietly roll their eyes.
Our current generation of oligarchs are nothing special.
This will be followed up by several posts that claim the internet has changed human existence and this time around is special. Has the interent changed human existence? Sure. Last century it was the telephone. The century before it was industrialization. Sometime before that it was the printing press or the black plague. For the past thousand years, it’s been a constant stream of fundamental disruptions.
History is a continuous set of conflicts, caused by the elites of the time, or revolutions to try and throw out the elites of the time.
One shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential harms caused by the elites of our time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Last century it was the telephone"
And telephone was a monopoly that was broken up.
"The century before it was industrialization"
Also evolved into a network of monopolies that had to be untangled, though without much success. This strengthens the argument that "it has become clear that regulation is needed, not least because the rise of technocracy proves that Silicon Valley's leaders simply will not act in the public's best interest".
Re: (Score:2)
It is rather funny that throughout every society and every form of 'government', the weakest amongst us always end up becoming used and abused and ultimately enslaved (not necessarily whips and chains type enslavement).
techno optimists finish line: AGI (Score:2)
What exactly is the actual grievance here? (Score:3)
Many of them profess unconditional support for free speech, but are vindictive toward those who say things that do not flatter them. They tend to hold eccentric beliefs.... above all, that their power should be unconstrained.
They're claiming the technologists have eccentric beliefs? This sounds made up.
Also, I'm pretty sure Technologists don't believe in Unlimited power, But they obviously have Unlimited control over the content on the services they built and operate... for example "Youtube" would be in control of Everything allowed to be posted and maintained on Youtube. Just the same way you have full control of which guests you invite into your household.
The systems they've built or are building — to rewire communications, remake human social networks, insinuate artificial intelligence into daily life, and more — impose these beliefs on the population, which is neither consulted nor, usually, meaningfully informed.
Another very strange way of putting things. Technologists and tech companies build systems. Communications Don't get rewired, except groups of humans make a decision that they like the service the technologists' brought to the table. But if you want to start using their service, then you obviously have to follow the rules of the person who owns and provides that service. If you think that service might be too controlling, Then don't use that service, and create your own instead. Simple... and Fully democratic. The design decisions of Facebook, etc, Are obviously not able to be decided by guests to their service -- But you have a vote To use a thing or to Not use a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, companies aren't people; they are only a legal concept. If your going to anthropomorphize them understand that large corporations are evil. The driving forces (e.g. executive leadership) change, so no matter what their only long term goal is profit i.e. Avarice(Greed) to put it in human terms, this is greed without other human traits that might temper it like compassion, empathy etc.. So greed without any conscience whatsoever i.e. profit over people (and the planet); so pure evil, in human terms (so
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody but yourself is talking about "unlimited power" the quote "their power should be unconstrained" means lack of constraints to power. It does not the power is unlimited.
What are you claiming is the difference between unconstrained power and unlimited power?
I also don't agree that corporations have the right to unconstrained power because there are contravening public interests.
Now you're moving on to the subject of rights.. A corporation has the same right to property they own, such as computer netw
What's up with this guy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Something is smelly here, reminds me of Jordan Peterson rethoric.
The message is obvious and has been obvious for a few years now. Why repack it in intellectual fog?
It was predicable (Score:4, Interesting)
Power corrupts. We allow people to accumulate obscene amounts of power under our economic system.
A billionaire is someone who can have you killed and afford the cover up without noticing the reduction in their net worth. Of COURSE they come to believe they're right and righteous and those who oppose them are wrong and to be oppressed - everything in their lives has encouraged and rewarded that kind of thinking.
If it wasn't the people running tech companies, it'd be something else. It's human nature and where unrestrained it tends towards undesirable outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. The previous system was to just hand out obscene power and wealth to your inbred children, who could kill people with impunity. However bad our current system is, it appears to be an improvement over the previous system.
And tech support scammers (Score:2)
...who impoverish the least technically adept of us. It's all part of the technocracy, "rule by the technical experts."
I used to think technology was all upside and no downside, until I saw how it forced people to adapt or fall behind. For example, the elderly are having trouble keeping up. And more and more things require a smartphone these days, such as visitor parking at the university near me.
The Worst People (Score:1)
These are and were people who have destroyed Democracy:
1920's - Oil Barrons
1930's - Bankers
1940's - *Bye decade due to war
1950's - Industrialists
1960's - Defense Industry
1970's - Advertisers
1980's - Hedge fund managers
1990's - Technologists
2000's - Search engine companies
2010's - Real estate agents and mortgage brokers
2020's - Social media sites
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are always alternatives (Score:1)
Oh, the irony... (Score:2)
In 2017 the controlling interest in The Atlantic was sold to The Emerson Collective [wikipedia.org] which is a Palo Alto based organization of techie thought leaders trying to re-shape the country to their preferences... created by Laurene Powell Jobs (the widow of Steve Jobs) using Apple money.
It's apparently not really an issue of techie people with fascist tendencies trying to re-shape the nation as much as it's WHICH techno fascists are steering the nation and which direction they are using the mix of bazillionaires,
Re: (Score:3)
Christ it's 1984 in here ... (Score:2)
We must fight the authoritarian technocracy with more authoritarian regulations by the entity with an actual monopoly, government.
It's already happened (Score:4, Insightful)
True but hypocritical (Score:2)
Our technocratic overlords are terrible and we should rise against them, but when they bring money to the Atlantic they're good, it seems.
Tech Industry Has Matured (Score:1)
The tech industry has matured. It's just like any other industry now; run by the same corporate sociopaths that run big oil or big tobacco or big snack-food.
Big tobacco bought politicians to keep people smoking. Big oil buys politicians to keep people driving. Big snack-food buys politicians to keep people eating (loved it when ketchup was declared a vegetable). And, now, big tech buys politicians to keep people scrolling. The recent threats by US government to hold big t