How Silicon Valley is disrupting democracy
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
I'd like a platform that focuses on face-to-face (video) interaction, including (somehow) with strangers.
You could start today by going on Omegle and carving out a niche as someone who wants thoughtful, reasoned, and substantive discussion.
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).
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-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.
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.
Consider the pattern:
1. As the first article shows, Silicon Valley has already accumulated unprecedented power over democratic institutions through consumer technologies
2. Now, through military contracts, companies like Anduril are gaining direct influence over national security infrastructure
3. The combination of agentic AI systems (that can control interfaces and take actions) with military applications creates a new power dynamic where tech companies aren't just influencing public opinion - they're potentially controlling military capabilities
This is particularly troubling when viewed alongside Marietje Schaake's observation that Silicon Valley has become "the antithesis of what its early pioneers set out to be: from dismissing government to literally taking on equivalent functions." The military contracts represent an even more direct assumption of government functions.
The dangerous feedback loop here is clear:
- Tech companies gain power through consumer platforms
- They leverage that influence to secure military contracts
- Military contracts provide both funding and protection from regulation
- This further increases their power over democratic institutions
- The cycle continues, with each iteration reducing democratic oversight
Luckey's casual attitude about using soldiers as compliant test subjects for new technologies perfectly exemplifies the kind of unaccountable power that the first article warns about. It's no longer just about controlling information flows - it's about controlling actual military capabilities without democratic oversight.
This suggests that military AI contracts aren't just another revenue stream for tech companies - they're potentially a way to bypass democratic constraints altogether, accelerating the "tech coup" that Schaake warns about in her book.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/10/29/1106325/palmer-l...
This said, the rich will keep sending money to candidates they believe will represent their agenda,no matter what side they are. That's why Big Tech is changing its tune now.
Elon Musk personally spent $250 million on Trump, not to mention getting far more personally involved in bending Twitter (which he spent $44 billion on) towards that end than any other social media network ever had previously.
For example, Morgan and Morgan was the largest corporate campaign donor (by dollars donated by employees) to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. John Morgan was a very vocal Clinton supporter. High level staffers from Hillary's campaign ended up attending some Morgan and Morgan company party events bringing powerful media connections with them as guests (I was there).
Also in tech companies which are socially liberal, you will have coworkers who will search for right-wing donators within the company and out them publicly (in a negative context) in Slack, etc. I've seen such messages.
Which is mostly misleading – corporations represent the shared interests of their stockholders not their employees, who often have adversarial material and political interests to their employers. Corporations political participation is through corporate PACs and independent expenditures, not primarily through the direct campaign contributions of people who happen to work with them.
Interesting, while contributions are reported blindly by employer, federal election law on corporate PACs recognizes this distinction in the “restricted class” of decision–making employees from whom corporate PACs may solicit donations. It would be interesting if direct contributions by employees were divided between this “restricted class” and other employees. (Though, again, stockholders are still more indicative of corporate interest than any class of employees.)
Companies/shareholders exercise their interests by _controlling who they hire_. We even cover over this with how we recruit and demographically.
When you're talking about industries that skew towards highly paid employees (tech, legal, etc), you're actually determining winners and losers in society by political affiliation.
"Skip houses with Trump signs."
No, I’m disagreeing with it.
> Companies get political favor by the donation activity of their employees
No, they don’t. The general public may have no further insight and basis to assign credit or blame than FEC reports by employee donations, but actual political actors have a lot deeper understanding and, if they are inclined to reward companies for political support, are a lot more specific to the support from the firm as a firm vs support from employees which may well be orthogonal or contrary to corporate interest.
And Zucks who used to play both sides but did a face-heel turn to MAGA before this November. And speaking of it, the Winkelvosses, too.
(And of course many tech-adjacent finance billionaires, and all the „old money“ heirs who own and vote the shares of the Mag 7.)
Harris's campaign spent more than 2:1 what Trump's did and also had public endorsements from just about every celebrity you could imagine. That's not nothing.
What's remarkable here is that the value of the celebrity endorsement took a massive nosedive this election without the Democrats realizing it.
In 2008, Facebook was hailed as a tool of democracy, since it was leveraged by Obama's campaign. We heard glowing stories about how the internet (and Facebook in particular) was giving a voice to the voiceless. This was a new dawn in democracy!
And now that Facebook is leveraged by conservatives, it's now considered a harbinger of everything bad in the world. Yet, the Trump movement is just as much a campaign of the disenfranchised as Obamas (probably more so). People were angry for decades and no one cared what they thought.
I try to not make divisive comments on HN unless necessary, but I think I have to say this.
My feeling is that the left wing were actually correct about the internet being a tool of democracy. It functions very well at free speech and connecting groups. But they misattribute their blame.
Their problem is not tech per se, nor even big tech. It's that tech have people a voice. They just didn't like what the people had to say.