10 ms·

The Rise of Technoauthoritarianism

65 points by fortran77 3y ago

happiness_idx 3y ago
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.
- soco 3y ago
  "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.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Its locked behind a paywall 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.
- nouryqt 3y ago
  https://archive.is/x1x1A https://archive.is/x1x1A
skrebbel 3y ago
> Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology Is this even a thing? 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.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  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.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Can you give me examples of E/acc-ers being fascist?
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      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.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        This is the first time I've seen the claim, and given the lack of substantiation, I'll dismiss it.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        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.
        3y ago
civilrights 3y ago
[flagged]
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
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.
- mmvasq 3y ago
  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. No one should have to experience this.
- 3y ago
ryandv 3y ago
> 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.
- dahart 3y ago
  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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#As_a_negative_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#As_a_negativ...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
bell-cot 3y ago
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.
- worsethndetroit 3y ago
  [flagged]
unwise-exe 3y ago
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.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > 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. https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/08/unfollow-everything/ https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/08/unfollow-everything/
- kedean 3y ago
  > 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".
ETH_start 3y ago
This is nothing more than a call to institute censorship over online content, by accusing those who refuse to institute said censorship of authoritarianism.
FreeAssangeNOW 3y ago
[flagged]
Anon89485739879 3y ago
The aristocrats are bawling for their imaginary friend to beat up the internet for stealing their megaphone.

65 points by fortran77 3y ago

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.

soco 3y ago
"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.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> Its locked behind a paywall 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.
nouryqt 3y ago
https://archive.is/x1x1A https://archive.is/x1x1A

skrebbel 3y ago

> Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology Is this even a thing? 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.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
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.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Can you give me examples of E/acc-ers being fascist?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    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.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      This is the first time I've seen the claim, and given the lack of substantiation, I'll dismiss it.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        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.
        3y ago

civilrights 3y ago

[flagged]

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

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.

mmvasq 3y ago
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. No one should have to experience this.
3y ago

ryandv 3y ago

> 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.

dahart 3y ago
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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#As_a_negative_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#As_a_negativ...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

bell-cot 3y ago

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.

worsethndetroit 3y ago
[flagged]

unwise-exe 3y ago

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.

Karellen 3y ago
> 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. https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/08/unfollow-everything/ https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/08/unfollow-everything/
kedean 3y ago
> 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".

ETH_start 3y ago

This is nothing more than a call to institute censorship over online content, by accusing those who refuse to institute said censorship of authoritarianism.

FreeAssangeNOW 3y ago

[flagged]

Anon89485739879 3y ago

The aristocrats are bawling for their imaginary friend to beat up the internet for stealing their megaphone.