
Why Technology Favors Tyranny - henrik_w
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/
======
voidhorse
This seems like a pretty shallow analysis. Plenty of thinkers who have
preceded Harai have offered views on the political qualities of technology
that strike me as more nuanced, potent, and true.

Lewis Mumford, writing in the 30s and 60s, conceived of two broad politico-
technic tendencies throughout history--authoritarian and democratic--both
could exist and certain forms of technology fell in one bucket or the other.
Langdon Winner, working off the ideas of Mumford and many others (stretching
far back as Plato) developed a very sophisticated look at technics and the
ways in which political structures favor or disfavor certain technologies, and
the ways in which technological systems collide with political, economic, and
social systems to result in a deep integration between technology and
politics.

Mr. Harai's article, contrarily, seems to be little more than an untempered
reaction to current events, without requisite incorporation of the prior
development and analysis of concepts in the fields of the history and
philosophy of technology. I more or less think Harai's conclusion is sound--
our current technical configurations and over-reliance on centralized
information technologies does trend toward a more authoritarian, rather than
democratic, political state of affairs. However, I think his argumentation is
incredibly weak and speculative. It could have been rendered a lot stronger,
and more useful, by engaging with the prior developments in the field. Perhaps
this judgement is a little unfair--this is a book excerpt converted into a
digestible Atlantic article--but I can't help but wonder if part of our lack
of control over technological growth and our lack of full consideration of the
ways in which our technological developments intersect with politics is due to
too many taking a stance like Harai's—one that is unduly speculative and seems
to forget the many warning flags and conceptual tools the tradition has
equipped us with, which, if properly employed, may help us correct our
unfortunate trajectories.

~~~
netcan
This is a very difficult topic to address well, in a way that's not so soaked
in zeitgeist that it would be nonsensical if read in 30 years.

I think a big part of the problem is the key terms. Democracy, liberty,
equality. These are undefined.

They may sound simple and self evident, but the way we use them is as rich and
subtle abstractions, bundles of associations with all sort of philosophical
positions and institutions.

Remember that the liberals who invented the term as we now use it... some of
them were slavers. How is this consistent with liberty? Somehow it was, to
them.

Anyway... I think Harari is mostly addressing what he sees as the employment
consequences of current technology. He buys the techno-unemployment argument,
and the argument goes from here.

I don't think it's fair to accuse Harari of lacking historical perspective.
He's a great teacher of historical perspective. He's responsible for a lot of
_my_ historical perspective, personally.

I disagree with a lot of this essay. The point about propoganda posters is a
solid one though.

------
bhauer
The gradual return of self-hosting and federated data networks (as evidenced
by a top-ranking submission today about a federated blog platform) is where I
put much of my hope in countering this doomsday scenario.

I feel the natural modern protest action is to starve ravenous information
collectors as much as feasible. But as with others in the self-hosting
movement, I've always been part of it, haven't stopped hosting the things I
care about myself. Many of us never got into the habit of feeding the
insatiable information machines. Why post photos to Facebook or Instagram when
you can just put them on a web server; why involve a third party at all?

But the user interfaces of self-hosting and decentralization as a broader
concept are way behind centralization. There's a lot of ground to cover.
Still, I am happy to see gradual growth in interest. Gradually, even for
novice self-hosters, it's going to get simpler to post photos onto that
personal web server and let friends know where to find them without involving
a data-hungry third party.

~~~
eropple
_> Why post photos to Facebook or Instagram when you can just put them on a
web server_

Because push-out services like Facebook actually _work_ , while doing a lot to
capture people's attention? Grandma isn't going to your web server without
coaching and a lot of repetition and then when she gets Facebook she's going
to forget.

It doesn't have to be this way, but it is this way, and the people who self-
host and decentralize (and I _do_ host a good chunk of my stuff myself so I
include myself in this) mostly do it for themselves. The UX for normal people
sucks.

~~~
indigochill
If you get your family on something like Diaspora (or other self-hosted social
network platform of choice), though, Grandma doesn't need to check Facebook.
All the photos and discussions she wants to see are on your Diaspora server.

~~~
api
Who maintains this server in a family with no IT people? Who fixes it when
it's down? Who maintains it when you are busy? What happens when its attacked
and you're too busy to respond?

~~~
pdkl95
> Who maintains this server

Ideally any hosing provider selected from a robust market of hosting services
competing on cost/bandwidth, cost/server-{storage,cpu}, uptime/support
guarantees, and any other actual recurring or per-use costs.

Any software running on the server (a database, HTTP service, etc) should be a
separate concern. Maybe you roll your own. Maybe a small fee to license a
software package that includes updates/fixes. Most people ideally should be
able to a community maintained package. The point is that someone needs to be
able to select a hosting service like they select other common services (e.g.
utilities, cable TV), plug in the URL of any other services they want to use
(or select a suggested option), and _be free to change their mind at any
time_.

If data storage and software is packaged in an _interoperable_ plug-in style,
it would be easy to, for example, move your comment database to another
provider by retaining their services and notifying your main hosting service
of the change.

Of course, this will never happen in our current environment of businesses
that prioritize trapping people into walled gardens and view interoperability
as a threat to their surveillance-based revenue.

------
Nasrudith
There is some very flawed thinking here. One thing is that technology has
seesawed the centralization of power between "elite" and masses. Bronze Age
armies were elite and superior with professional armies supported by
underclasses in a palace economy. Except in addition to the probable famine
related bronze age collapse iron won out as quantity having a quality of its
own. Horsemen whether heavily armored as in the west or horse archery in the
east were the elite that miltia rabble were at a huge disadvantage towards
although they faced various setbacks that were slightly democratized like
longbowmen or well drilled pikemen (still pretty professional). The reason the
French Chevaliers never had their men adopt longbow training was authoritarian
- while the English were by no means a bastion of absolute liberty or
democracy for anything beyond things to petty to care about like hamlet
leading they still had to keep peasants happy enough to not turn their
longbows on them. That was unacceptable to the French. Firearms were
ultimately their end in relevance as men with guns could be mustered in weeks
not months or years. Longbows were technically better in many ways but muskets
were cheap. However technology has marched on. If you look at comparable
battle reports of a first world professional army they look statistically
superhuman in comparison. Apparently the intense training is such that desert
locals thought that their body armor had to have air conditioning in it
instead of just hydrating up frequently and plenty of PT.

This is a bit of a tangent but the point is that technology goes all over the
damn place in terms of what it favors and suppression won't work well.

Also it seems very destroy the village to save it to propose government data
gathering as a solution to lack of liberty. Not to mention suspiciously like
self justification in both cases.

------
Pinckney
See also: You and the Atomic Bomb

[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb](http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb)

~~~
arnioxux
Tangentially related, this reminds me of the spy recordings[1] between
incarcerated German nuclear physicists and their reactions to the atomic bomb
dropping.

At first they were incredulous and thought it must be a bluff. The bomb should
be "impossible", with Germany failing at their own nuclear project a few years
earlier. Then they slowly worked out how it could have been done, and realized
that the americans must've had hundreds of thousands of people working on it.
"Which is a hundred times more than we had" This was follow by a lot of regret
over what they could've done better and the various implications of a world
where such a bomb now exists.

I originally found that link from a tweet[2] by someone working at OpenAI. I
am sure AI scientists are feeling similar anxiety about their research.

It's easier than ever for someone with a hundred times your computation
resources to achieve things that are supposed to be "impossible", at least to
the unsuspecting public who haven't grasp the rate of progress in AI.

And I am not even talking about some massmurdering AGI. It's the boring stuff
like astroturfing chatbots whose sole purpose is to psychoanalyze individuals
to manipulate voting behavior that scares me. This asymmetric power might
already be available to those who are willing to throw a few hundred GPU years
at the problem and I am not sure how the common man can defend against it.

[1] "Transcript of Surreptitiously Taped Conversations among German Nuclear
Physicists at Farm Hall, August 1945" [http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-
dc.org/pdf/eng/English101.pdf](http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-
dc.org/pdf/eng/English101.pdf)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/778286393441169408](https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/778286393441169408)

~~~
baq
I find your analogy very concerning. It looks like it’s already the case with
Russian troll factories and who knows who else.

------
intended
>For starters, we need to place a much higher priority on understanding how
the human mind works—particularly how our own wisdom and compassion can be
cultivated.

Here, be dragons.

Our analysis of the human brain allows us to better hack the human brain.
Someone will use it to improve their RoI.

There’s no such thing as learning “compassion” without also learning other
adjacent things as well. Perhaps withholding compassion, or selective
compassion. Perhaps alienation is a close neuronal cousin.

Opening up one set of pathways also opens up other pathways for manipulation,
good or ill.

~~~
indigochill
I thought the same thing when he went to "let's regulate for privacy". How is
piling laws on not building an authoritarian state (regardless of the kind)?
Regulations over time tend to favor those with the money and power to
influence politics, so this is not a solution.

I think the only real answer is to educate people. Educate them about the
value of their personal information, what can happen if it gets into the wrong
hands, and how to practice infosec self defense.

~~~
intended
I’ve found that “educate” is a losing game.

By all means educate, but don’t forget that

1) there’s a never ending list of things to educate people about, from climate
change to personal finance, cyber security, fake news, hoaxes - and those are
the flavors of the current cycle. There’s already too much to teach people

2) it doesn’t always take- and people are often too busy to sit and absorb
more info. Especially that which is not directly linked to their immediate
goals.

Finally - I think fixing learning is a proxy for making society work properly
in the first place. Educating people is not the solution, but a side effect of
getting things working correctly - meaning affordable education, nutrition,
healthcare, safety, good teachers, available jobs- these are all pre reqs for
teaching people, and having them be able to learn and absorb information.

~~~
sharemywin
"there’s a never ending list of things to educate people about"

I think you kind of hit on the problem. How do you trust "the expert" not to
manipulate their status/authority/credentials without becoming an expert in
everything. Rankings and rating are being gamed, scientists manipulate data,
government is being corrupted by special interest/big money, corporate owned
marketplaces are poor solutions, media is biased and manipulated. trust is
failing everywhere.

------
ungzd
So much focus on "artifical intelligence" which does not exist as a real
concept and is just a buzzword.

Statistics and data analysis existed for centuries but never caused collapse
of civilization.

------
Animats
There's good material in that article, but it's not the AI part. This is the
important part:

 _" In 2018 the common person feels increasingly irrelevant. ... In the 20th
century, the masses revolted against exploitation and sought to translate
their vital role in the economy into political power. Now the masses fear
irrelevance, and they are frantic to use their remaining political power
before it is too late. ... Perhaps in the 21st century, populist revolts will
be staged not against an economic elite that exploits people but against an
economic elite that does not need them anymore. This may well be a losing
battle. It is much harder to struggle against irrelevance than against
exploitation."_

That's not about the future. That's already happened. The US has a huge
population that's just not economically relevant. They used to matter, but
they were left behind. Hence Trump.

Two big trends in the US - a huge useless population, and economic
centralization.

There are many towns and small cities in the US that have no reason to go on
existing. They were built as service centers for a farming population that
shrank decades ago. Many are limping along on retirees that don't leave. But
the old people die off and that money source stops. Nobody moves in, and
anybody with any ambition left for the big city long ago. The average age in
rural America is 51. US farm workers are under 2% of the workforce. (90%
before the industrial revolution.)

Economic centralization. Since banking deregulation, the US is down to four
big banks. WalMart ate most small-town retail, and Amazon is eating the rest.
(A sidelight: social activities have moved online. To massive centralized
online services. Tinder and Facebook aren't running on the town's little
server in the back room of the drugstore, like an 80s BBS. Teens don't go into
town, or to malls, to hang out much any more. Another killer for small towns.)
Most little stuff is coming from abroad, knocking out little factories that
used to make spoons and toasters.

This is nos.

~~~
blueboo
> They used to matter, but they were left behind. Hence Trump.

A common misconception; those who were 'left behind' tended to vote
Democratic: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/06/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-
working-class/)

------
crdoconnor
In the 1930s after a decade or so of economic suppression the elites looked
for a safe scapegoat to redirect the torrent of popular fury at.

It appears elites are on the hunt for a popular scapegoat again. Immigrants,
Muslims and now technology.

It has as much to do with technology as it has to do with muslims.

~~~
CM30
I thought the popular target was 'deplorables'. Or maybe internet trolls and
fake news. Note the steady march away from elites and corporations as the
enemy towards bullies on Twitter and social media being the 'issue of the
day'. Seems like a very convenient way to shift the ire from those with power
to those without. A way to make left wing politics from an economic battle
into a meaningless circle of virtual signalling.

------
xte
Sorry no. ACTUAL tech is already a tyranny but that's not "technology", that's
only a kind of possible evolution, mostly finance not tech.

We have had plenty and we still have technology that are free, that enforce
freedom, they are always attacked in various forms, from "legal fight" against
phenomenon we formally want to fight but with a second not-so-disguised
target, they are pushed to oblivion with colorful (web)interfaces, locked down
because of hw evolution etc but they exist, they are still tech.

Do NEVER think that what we have today is the sole possible, most advanced,
less ugly possible society/world.

------
ergothus
Technology offers power, and power rewards those that use it. This applies as
equally to modern tech as it did to older tech like literacy, so there isnt
much point in focusing on that aspect.

The meritocracy dream is that everyone unites to use power not only for
themselves, but in support of a degree of equality (some versions want equal
results, others strive for equal opportunity, but for this argument those are
the same basic goal). After all, it is in our each of own interests to avoid a
concentration of power in others that could harm us.

But in reality, people are lazy. We want to be comfortable. Governments (or
other social bodies) exist to exercise our power so we dont have to worry
about every detail. Power concentration is the easiest result, regardless of
system of governance.

Power concentration isnt inherently bad, but it is ripe to be exploited,
because the ultimate watchdogs over it - us, the common people - dont want
that job.

I read a great statement here a few months ago, that went something like
"modern democracy isnt the people deciding what govt does, it is the people
deciding the boundaries within which govt operates."

I've been pondering that a ton lately. It shows how I, a US liberal, the many
libertarians here, authoritarian conservatives, fiscal conservatives,
European-style liberals, and most everyone else can all be so baffled by each
others' views. We evaluate not the rules we want, but how we expect the govt
to behave within those boundaries.

Unfortunately, while this eases my mind on how otherwise intelligent people
want "dumb" things, it also suggests that there is no reliable system: we
require a system as a matter of scale, be it loose or rigid. Any system exists
because of a degree of trust that the system will not be manipulated or
abused. ("System" here includes any interactions as simple as expecting
contracts to be followed, so minimal govt is just a different system) You are
rewarded for abusing the system. After the abuse is painful enough, people
will demand a new system. Advocates for any given system will argue they have
protections ("minimal government", "oversight", etc) but those rely on people
being informed and active enough to repel abuse...and we're not.

~~~
canadaduane
Great points, and thanks for recapping others' illuminating points about
government.

I recently attended Ethereum DevCon and heard a succinct definition of
decentralization from Prof. David Lee Kuo Chuen that I've been pondering in
the week since: "Decentralization is dynamic, continuous distribution of
trust."

This may be the core of why people are excited about new consensus algorithms
like blockchain: we've seen how static, centralized systems of trust
distribution eventually break, and the discontinuity of trust that results is
very harmful to societies (e.g. bad kings, bad presidents, corruption in
parties, collusion of central banks, hacked central servers, etc.)

I think we are still in very early days (see
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZxjVJz4ds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZxjVJz4ds)
haha) but "blockchain" is the beginning of something new that has to do with
helping solve social issues in a new way, with dynamic distribution of trust
at the center of that solution.

~~~
XorNot
Except "blockchain" doesn't decentralize anything. It's decentralized in the
sense that none of the big powers of the world care to try and take over
things like Bitcoin, but it is _fundamentally_ based on rewarding those who
can gather the most autonomous resources.

Blockchains are one of the worst methods to decentralize anything, because
they don't require any consensus from the "governed" \- they do exactly what
whoever has ansible/puppet/chef connected to the most computers wants them to
do.

EDIT: Let's put a very real example on this - if blockchains controlled
anything powerful, then there becomes two superpowers - nvidia and AMD. All
they do is retool their business cycle so GPUs coming off the line go into
N-months of burn-in doing blockchain things in an air-conditioned warehouse,
and then get on-sold to consumers.

Blockchains reward compute capacity, and nothing else.

~~~
canadaduane
I was careful to avoid the use of the term "blockchain" as a final achievement
because I agree with you regarding current limitations of our technology as a
means of decentralized consensus. I see a future where more efficient
algorithms supplant the current (very costly) blockchain BFT architecture.

------
aylmao
> The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty
> and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible.

> In the second decade of the 21st century, liberalism has begun to lose
> credibility. Questions about the ability of liberal democracy to provide for
> the middle class have grown louder;

Right off the bat, it sounds to me like the author is conflating the idea of
democracy with economic liberalism. Democracy didn't fail the middle class--
economic neo-liberalism did. But democracy can and does exist without economic
liberalism, and by the looks of Scandinavia, it is better for the middle class
that way.

> politics have grown more tribal; and in more and more countries, leaders are
> showing a penchant for demagoguery and autocracy. The causes of this
> political shift are complex, but they appear to be intertwined with current
> technological developments.

I see this narrative a lot, but I have to wonder if this (which the author
seems to just assume is the case) is this really true. 10 years ago, the
narrative was "technology has given us democracy". The Arab Spring had Twitter
and Facebook stamped all over it. This open forum was the ultimate expression
of freedom.

It seems to me that big political changes have people looking for
explanations, pointing fingers, and the internet with all its new developments
is a natural player to point to.

I don't know if the Arab Spring wouldn't have happened --much like I don't
know if Trump hadn't had happened-- were it not for Facebook, Twitter, etc.
But I do believe that ultimately, from an outsiders perspective, the USA got a
very American president that fits the ideas and attitudes of a large swath of
the population. After years of being failed at by "establishment politicians",
is it that surprising Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both whom were anti-
NAFTA, anti-establishment, had a hard stance against the state of things, etc.
exploded in popularity? Is it that surprising that Hilary Clinton's campaign
was weak, when the message that most resonated with a lot of its supporters
was that it was a vote "against Trump"?

Has it been a newsfeed, or neo-liberalist policies that have failed the people
and put us in this situation? IMO claiming it's the former is irresponsible
and will just perpetuate a broken system, that will keep on corrupting all
aspects of the economic machine of the world.

~~~
forrealfreedom
Very well said. I had some similar thoughts but couldn't congeal them into a
consistent thread.

------
bravenewworlds
This was amazing to read! Practical advice as well, loved it.

------
netcan
_Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far
more common modes of human governance._

I don't disagree with the point, but there's a blindness it.

It's kind of like saying paganism and heathenism have been far more common
modes of spirituality than religion.

In reality, there have been a very large number of "modes of governance" that
you (or they) can classify lots of different ways. The way the author chose to
categorise them is "our sytem" and "bad systems."

To a Marxist, liberal democracy goes into the " _Monarchies, oligarchies, and
other forms of authoritarian rule_ " bucket.

A current Chinese cultural narrative is thousands of years of empire, until
the ccp.

~~~
m12k
It could actually be argued that many monarchies were a rough form of
democracy for the nobility, where the king only got to reign as long as he
didn't make himself so unpopular as to make the aristocracy band together and
depose him.

~~~
brownbat
Malcolm X nailed one of the most salient features of democracy in his ballot
or bullet speech.

All forms of government have periodic changes of power.

Democratic revolutions involve considerably less blood.

All forms of government are eventually subject to public backlash. Democracy
is just generally less violent.

~~~
netcan
Well... Revolutionariea are always interested in revolutions.

The word "Democracy" is tricky because people with radically different
politics generally disagree about what is democratic.

Allowing for that... I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic
revolutions involve less blood? The French and American Revolutions were very
bloody (especially th french).

The American civil war was a revolution in some sense, democratic in some
sense too (in that black suffrage was on the line).

You might call the 1989 revolutions democratic. Maybe even the revolutions of
1848. If you're not of the "liberal-demicratic" persuasion maybe you think Mao
or Castro were the true democrats. Both of their revolutions were bloody.

Elsewhere in that speech Malcolm (famously) addresses the African
decolonisation revolutions, pointing out the bloodshed.

~~~
atq2119
> I wonder what gave Malcolm the impression that democratic revolutions
> involve less blood?

It sounds like he intended to use the term "revolution" to simply describe a
transfer of power, against the will of the previously ruling party.

Democratic transfers of power are unique in that they generally occur without
violence. We might take this for granted today, but it is in fact something
that must be cherished.

------
charlesism

         The causes of this political shift are complex
    

2018 - (1945 - 12)

Now compare to average life-expectancy.

~~~
presscast
Your point may be obvious to you, but it's indecipherable to others. Could you
elaborate?

~~~
arkades
Not OP but:

Almost everyone old enough to have a shred of memory regarding the last time
global politics went this way has passed away.

~~~
charlesism
Precisely.

------
cambaceres
"In 1938 the common man’s condition in the Soviet Union, Germany, or the
United States may have been grim, but he was constantly told that he was the
most important thing in the world"

That might have been the case in the United States, but in Nazi Germany and
especially in Soviet Union, the common man was told that he was worth nothing,
and that the state was everything.

------
slx26
the article talks about a lot of different topics, about history and society
in general, but to be fair, it doesn't seem very accurate when actually
talking about technology. in my opinion it looks more like just another part
of the digression, although I didn't read it entirely

~~~
FiveSquared
Read it then with a open mind!

------
ewzimm
It's interesting that Mr. Harai's analysis is almost exactly like what you
might typically find from a typical right-wing person except for the proposed
solutions. Among people who support various nationalist causes around the
world, fear of the centralization of power through technology is a primary
motivator for devolution of power from centralized authorities to more local
governments. However, instead of increased decentralization of political
power, Mr. Harai proposes increased centralization of regulation on data
collection as the most likely solution to the problem of centralized power,
while acknowledging the dangers of the regulation regime becoming a danger in
itself. He doesn't seem to have a clear answer to this problem, and I wonder
what types of proposals might fix it. AI assistants that are completely
transparent and loyal to their individual owners might be one part of the
solution.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's interesting that Mr. Harai's analysis is almost exactly like what you
> might typically find from a typical right-wing person except for the
> proposed solutions. Among people who support various nationalist causes
> around the world, fear of the centralization of power through technology is
> a primary motivator for devolution of power from centralized authorities to
> more local governments._

You say it like it's a bad thing, when it's just a different political opinion
(centralized vs decentralized government etc).

In many case these "nationalist" causes are not nationalist in the sense of
"let's invade Poland" or "our nation is some superior race", but in what used
to be called "national independence", "isolationism", "anti-colonialism",
"anti-neocolonialism" and so on.

And you don't have to be "right wing" to be for it, although indeed as of late
"left wing" has been increasingly getting synonymous with "left wing lite",
which is just global corporatist business as usual + identity politics.

~~~
ewzimm
I actually agree with you that it's just a different political opinion, and I
had meant to convey it in a neutral way here. Both Mr. Harai and many
nationalists seem to agree that the decentralization of power is important,
but they disagree on how best to accomplish it. I also agree that centralized
power is a growing threat, and I think that if we want to make progress in
reducing potential harms, we should focus on effective solutions together.

Personally, I'm skeptical that centralized regulation is a long-term solution,
and I think that we need more free and open source hardware and software or at
least trustworthy technology that can be independently audited to verify that
it protects the interests for individual owners rather than serving at the
pleasure of someone else. I think most major technology companies, regardless
of current policies, acknowledge that there is an increasing need for
accountability and that people are beginning to distrust technology monetized
by harvesting data and directing behavior.

