Kind of odd to see the guy who provided proof of the coordinated censorship that everyone knew was happening, being held out as the one named example of unregulated tech companies becoming more illiberal.
.
> Technocrats are right that technology is a key to making the world better. But first we must describe the world as we wish it to be—the problems we wish to solve in the public interest, and in accordance with the values and rights that advance human dignity, equality, freedom, privacy, health, and happiness. And we must insist that the leaders of institutions that represent us—large and small—use technology in ways that reflect what is good for individuals and society, and not just what enriches technocrats.
Restricting innovation to only things approved by people with the right values and goals has quite a track record of backfiring spectacularly.
> Restricting innovation to only things approved by people with the right values and goals has quite a track record of backfiring spectacularly.
Counterpoint: not restricting innovation in any way has quite a track record of backfiring spectacularly, too, because it turns out the goal is often "make as much money as possible at the expense of everyone else".
> The problem isn't just that Zuck is really bad at being the unelected pope-emperor of the digital lives of 3,000,000,000 people – it's that the job of "pope-emperor of 3,000,000,000 people" should be abolished.
Reaction, after skimming the article... "Technoauthoritarianism" is just click-bait. And/or a sign that The Atlantic utterly clueless about history. Or at least they want to keep their readers utterly clueless about history.
Whether you're looking at today's FAANG's, or the United Fruit Company of the earlier 1900's, or the businesses (Standard Oil, etc.) broken up via the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, or the British East India Company, or ..., or tax farming back in Ancient Rome, or ... - the stories are extremely similar.
This is nothing more than a call to institute censorship over online content, by accusing those who refuse to institute said censorship of authoritarianism.
I don't mean to excuse Facebook for lots of negative consequences they've unleashed on the world, but I think journalists should realize that repeating ad infinitum Zuckerberg's "Dumb fucks" quote can have the opposite of the intended purpose. I stopped reading after that quote.
That quote has been repeated a bajillion times already. Importantly, it was over 20 years ago, as the article points out, when Zuckerberg was an arrogant college student in a private chat. Ironically, I think this quote is a great argument against Facebook and social media, but almost in the exact opposite way that journalists intend.
People change. People say dumb shit when they're in college, especially when they're trying to boast to friends, privately. One of the biggest downsides of Facebook and social media is that it preserves all the mistakes of our youth (which in my opinion should have the freedom to be gradually forgotten as they recede in the past) for all time. There has been a ton of research and musings about how today's young people are much more risk averse than generations past, largely to their detriment, and it's not surprising given how the consequences of a juvenile mistake are more severe now than ever before.
To emphasize, I'm not giving Zuckerberg a free pass, at all. I just think there are tons of much more recent actions and behaviors by Zuckerberg and Meta that deserve opprobrium that can easily be highlighted. You don't need to dredge up 2-decade old quotes that have already been widely reported. It smacks of lazy journalism and just shows that you are using some of the worst impulses that Facebook itself has made widespread.
So right. I have lived experience with someone who stalked me based on a 20-year-old (literally) 20 years ago - Internet post. At first, I thought they were sarcastic - until they actually drugged my sister and had her call me and I realized they had hired a sex offender to actually stalk me. This app is the same way. No ability to delete or forget what is posted. No one is suing anyone 20 years later, so retention of that data is not needed. It is only kept purely for profiling purposes. Ones that do not seem to add value other than support smear campaign efforts.
Having had first-hand experience, it's like walking into a nice resort at age 50 and having someone at the dining table pick up a brawl from a rugby match 20 years ago, thinking oh hey this is where we left off last I saw you.
The fact that your entire life's story, your narrative, is also forever preserved in the archives of the net, also lends credence to the illusion of a permanent, unchanging, fixed and immutable self.
People don't change. They can't change. It's impossible to act "out of character," because if you act in a manner that is opposed to how you have been depicted, represented on social media in the past, people will say, "oh, that's not the real you!" and reject all your attempts at self transformation, reminding you of who you were, where you've been, what you were wearing in that group photo last Friday...
It's fundamentally changing our concept of self, ossifying it in our digital fossil record. It's impossible to introduce a discontinuity into the thread of your life's story when the cameras are rolling 24/7. The cognitive fluency of being able to access thousands of self-representations, facsimiles of who you are, makes it easier to identify with the selfie on the screen. Easier to identify with the profile picture or the avatar. Easier to become locked into the constraints you imposed on yourself when you decided to freeze a snapshot of your person and preserve it in a digital time capsule. Easier to fall prey to the delusion that the self is permanent and immutable.
You never step in the same river twice. It just looks like the same river when we take a picture of it and frame it on our wall.
> 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.
I am ecstatic that people are catching on to this ridiculous language game in which empty PR words and marketing copy are somehow confused with reality itself. The Ministry of Liberalism is anything but; just ask their colleagues at the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Peace.
Isn’t that quote deeply confused about what “free speech” means? Free speech does not mean you can say unflattering things and avoid any push-back or social consequences. Think about it: if you say something mean to someone and they can’t say something mean back, then their freedom is limited.
Furthermore, free speech isn’t absolute, and libel, slander, fighting words, and untrue statements all aren’t protected by free speech laws in the US. Vindictive responses to exaggeration or lies are not subject to freedom of speech law. They certainly could be illegal for other reasons.
“Freedom of speech is usually seen as a negative right.[24] This means that the government is legally obliged to take no action against the speaker based on the speaker's views, but that no one is obliged to help any speakers publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge the speaker or the speaker's views.”
This article paints with such broad strokes that I think you could use the same approach to find “proof” that Silicon Valley has any ideology that you don’t like.
I mean “Silicon Valley” is both the home of DEI maximalists and the home of anti-woke crusaders like Elon Musk. It’s both the home of e/acc and the home of AI doomers. Find nearly any policy debate and you’ll find SV, like most other places, passionately divided.
It’s the mainstream media version of calling HN hypocritical.
The way I see it, what binds Silicon Valley together into a single ideology is the belief that everything should be running software and that the rest of society should conform to software defined rules. AI doomers and e/acc both deeply believe in the power of AI and disagree on how to approach that power.
In SV the question isn't, "Should we introduce self driving cars on the road and how will that impact safety?" instead it is "How can we get the disengagement and accident metrics of self driving cars below that of the average human driver?". The assumption is always that more software and more data collection will result in better products.
I don't really consider the DEI v anti-woke debate worth having. The anti-woke crusaders are all twitter addicts hooked on rage-bait and either these people are very rare in actual companies, or they keep their heads down at work. The DEI "movement" as experienced on the ground is simply the yearly corporate training that tells you not to say slurs at work and some fluffy PR speak on company hiring pages.
Yes it's a thing. That they disagree on implementation details doesn't mean they aren't part of the same apparatus. "Anti-woke" and "DEI" maximalist at tech companies both believe in the power and autonomy of the companies as an end, they just disagree about the representation among those holding power within them.
AI doomers and e/acc I'm less clear on. E/acc is just straightforwardly very fascist. AI doomers seem to have much broader ideological underpinnings, but still seem overall aligned with the more moderate strain of the "technoauthoritarianism" we're talking about.
So sure, not everything fits into it, it's not all-pervasive. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about trends and inclinations.
As mentioned in the article, Andreessen's "techno-optimist manifesto" cited Marinetti - one of the coauthors of the original fascist manifesto - as one of his inspirations
Marinetti was also the author of the Futurist Manifesto. The Fascist Manifesto that he co-authored advocates an ideology that is quite different than that practiced by fascist Italy and especially fascist Germany, so was arguably not advocating fascism as we know it today. He also opposed the anti-Jewish racial laws of 1938.
His futurist political beliefs were ultimately silly IMHO, but I don't think it's fair to cast anyone who quotes his futurist writings as a fascist, let alone casting the entire movement in which the person who quoted him plays some prominent role as fascist.
The claims of fascism almost all ultimately go back to Nick Land and his stupid writings. The guy is just fashionable nonsense/cultural marxism for the tech-bro. There's almost no other ring wing representation at all within critical theory, and Land is marginalized within those communities. I wish that Mark Fischer had captured the same kind of cultural capital that Nick Land has before he killed himself, because I expected Mark Fischer to be beloved from the "AGI now"/E/acc-ers crowd.
I don't care how unpopular what I'm about to say is becasue it's true, but most "E/acc-ers" are ultimately looking for a world like star-trek, though even they admit it'll look most closely to DS9. I know of almost none who serious advocate for any kind of fascism.
No I don't feel like quibbling about the definition of fascism or the extent to which tech accelerationism is right wing. It's not a novel observation or unique to me, I'm sure you can find some primers if this is the first you're hearing about it.
You're on another comment in this thread quibbling about the definition of fascism. Dismiss what you want but I'm feeling ok about my initial read on this question.
To my understanding it’s mostly a twitter meme pretending to be a philosophy. Basically, the EA people started worrying more about AI risk than about malaria, so some people who think that AI is cool and that there should be more of it took the “Effective” from EA but replaced the “Altruism” by “Accellerationism”. The latter is actually a weird alt right fringe idea by a guy called Nick Land that doesn’t really overlap that much with “Yay tech! Yay AI!”, but the twitter people didn't read it so no matter. And, well, the word sure sounds like “wanting the tech to go faster” so it felt like a nice way to oppose the luddites from EA while hijacking their acronym.
Ofc the “same acronym means 2 opposing standpoints” thing got confusing within hours, so they renamed it to e/acc and there ya go.
There’s nothing particularly effective about e/acc, they only needed the E to annoy the AI doomers.
It does overlap a lot. Accelerationism is a cosmismist viewpoint and rejects the orthogonality thesis. In other words, it favours the construction of ASI even if it means the extinction of the human race.
You have to understand that critical theory exists to find criticisms of opponents and ideologies, whether they exist or are simply a figment of the ideologues' imaginations.
Its locked behind a paywall, In general, I can conclude with increasing accessibility of intimate personal information on social media will drive individuals to delve into others private decisions. This phenomenon is likely to extend beyond personal spheres, encompassing cultural critiques and various aspects of people's lives. Individuals in positions of authority will face heightened expectations to take action, "Be Better", "Do something", and fulfill their responsibilities to their user base. The privilege of making decisions without scrutiny is contingent upon the preservation of anonymity; once anonymity is lifted, the luxury of independent decision-making becomes constrained by critique. The problem is our dialogues have shifted from the protections of "being outside" to walled gardens.
Do yourself a favour and set your web browser to open every page in Reader view by default. This cleans away ads, cookie popups etc, and also bypasses paywalls in most cases, including this article.
"individuals to delve into others private decisions" - you mean private decisions like, the decision to have an abortion, who to sleep with, or what pronouns to use? We are waaaay past that point.
.
> Technocrats are right that technology is a key to making the world better. But first we must describe the world as we wish it to be—the problems we wish to solve in the public interest, and in accordance with the values and rights that advance human dignity, equality, freedom, privacy, health, and happiness. And we must insist that the leaders of institutions that represent us—large and small—use technology in ways that reflect what is good for individuals and society, and not just what enriches technocrats.
Restricting innovation to only things approved by people with the right values and goals has quite a track record of backfiring spectacularly.