4 ms·

This article is 90% a generic rant against big tech, and 10% actually answering the question in its title. The only parts where it actually mentions democracy a

This article is 90% a generic rant against big tech, and 10% actually answering the question in its title. The only parts where it actually mentions democracy are: 1. Some libertarians tech founders do not believe liberty and democracy are compatible. 2. Spyware and facial recognition being described as anti-democratic (but I think this is more anti-liberty instead?). 3. Generally, too much wealth and power which might undermine democracy. True, but not specific to tech, other than that they're "big" right now. 4. General advocacy for democratic systems to regulate tech. This is not controversial at all, besides maybe the most extreme libertarians. The concluding paragraph is just about "maybe tech is not the solution" and "maybe stability is better than progress" (conservatism?) which is, as you can see, not related to democracy at all. It's just general anti-tech talking points, which is fine, but the article's not supposed to be about that. I don't think there's much new insights in this article to be found. In fact, if you also believe that facial recognition CCTVs are more anti-liberty than anti-democracy, then point 1 and point 2 actually contradict (the author would be accidentally agreeing with the tech founders).

text0404 2y ago
it's a bit disingenuous to call Peter Thiel, the man who helped bankroll Trump's first presidential run and groomed and chose the vice president for the second, "some libertarian tech founder". this is arguably _the_ tech founder in politics next to Musk, using their money to wield undue influence over democratic elections. futhermore, the described "spyware and facial recognition technology" has actually been used to silence dissidents and journalists ("silence" meaning torture and kill): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/nso-spyware-used-to-target-family-of-jamal-khashoggi-leaked-data-shows-saudis-pegasus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/nso-spyware-us.... tech is "big" right now in the sense that they've overtaken the world and democratic institutions. that's how they're different from other large corporate entities: they have managed to subvert traditional safeguards, which is why "big tech" has become a threat.
archagon 2y ago
> Generally, too much wealth and power which might undermine democracy. True, but not specific to tech, other than that they're "big" right now. Tech is uniquely positioned to effect change, however. A finance baron can't make the masses believe that electing a billionaire crony is actually good for them; a social media mogul can.

text0404 2y ago

it's a bit disingenuous to call Peter Thiel, the man who helped bankroll Trump's first presidential run and groomed and chose the vice president for the second, "some libertarian tech founder". this is arguably _the_ tech founder in politics next to Musk, using their money to wield undue influence over democratic elections. futhermore, the described "spyware and facial recognition technology" has actually been used to silence dissidents and journalists ("silence" meaning torture and kill): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/nso-spyware-used-to-target-family-of-jamal-khashoggi-leaked-data-shows-saudis-pegasus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/nso-spyware-us.... tech is "big" right now in the sense that they've overtaken the world and democratic institutions. that's how they're different from other large corporate entities: they have managed to subvert traditional safeguards, which is why "big tech" has become a threat.

archagon 2y ago

> Generally, too much wealth and power which might undermine democracy. True, but not specific to tech, other than that they're "big" right now. Tech is uniquely positioned to effect change, however. A finance baron can't make the masses believe that electing a billionaire crony is actually good for them; a social media mogul can.