I'd like a study that investigates how much tech has replaced face-to-face interaction. I guess such face-to-face interaction is how democracy worked in the past. Starting at the founding of the US, voting and discussion about votes was ace-to-face with a few books and newspapers. Now our face-to-face time to discuss our vote is only among family or close associates, where we can stay in a bubble.
I'd like a platform that focuses on face-to-face (video) interaction, including (somehow) with strangers.
> 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.
I've never played with Omegle, but can you develop a reputation that will affect who gets matched with you, or is it just random? I guess I'm wondering if when you say "carving out a niche" you meant "creating a reputation" or something else.
omegle.com is shut down [1] while omegle.cc looks to be sex-focused. MB you're trolling me?
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).
> 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.
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-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 disrupting democracy? So before tech, there was democracy? Is that why the media sold the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs back in 2003?
There's another article on the site discussing Palmer Luckey's moves into military applications (1). Drawing from both articles, there's a concerning convergence that deserves attention: The way military AI development could accelerate the tech industry's disruption of democratic processes discussed in the first article.
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...
Article fails to mention how almost all of big tech backed Harris (and spent over a billion) and Trump only gets the Thiel and his acolytes. They play both sides and will continue to.
There's a difference between a company directly backing a candidate and employees of company backing a candidate. Most of the contributions you're referring to came from employees, which makes sense given that most well-to-do tech employees are socially liberal. It would be a mistake to attribute these donations to "big tech". You wouldn't attribute a donation from a farmer to "big agriculture".
Campaign contributions are tracked and searchable by employer though. Additionally, large contributions from companies are recognized and curry favor from the parties.
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.
> Campaign contributions are tracked and searchable by employer though.
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.)
You're completely missing the point though. Companies get political favor by the donation activity of their employees and also the employees work to discourage contributions by the unfavored party.
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."
> You’re completely missing the point though.
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.
If Harris had won, we would be hearing about how Big Tech enabled the "Greatest Show on Earth", the "Voice of the People" and things like that.
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.
The rich give money to the side they want to win. The wealthy give to both sides so they have influence, no matter who wins
"Big tech" didn't spend over a billion, that's how much Harris spent total.
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.
- [deleted]
Trump also got Musk who - among other things - bought a social network for $50-odd billion to bend it into a right wing mouthpiece. One billion donated by Californian and Washington state tech workers is nothing in comparison…
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.)
> nothing in comparison
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.
[flagged]
its not comical at all.. (that is last-ditch personal defense kicking in) In the past, societies have had serious upheaval over personal conquerors pushing too many, too far.. In the current context, where does that upheaval come from?
This is one of those who/whom issues. People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people.
It should be a truism that down voting correlates with progressive views. Why? Because anti free speech is an integral component of critical theory. That's also why "tolerance" is a virtue that has completely fallen off our cultural radar. (If this post hasn't become grayed-out, give it a few minutes.)
In our complex society, we have to outsource our gathering of knowledge about the world to other people. If we know what these people are being censored or are censoring themselves then we can no longer trust this information. Our society will no longer have generally agreed upon truths (an epistemic crisis).
It really is a crisis! There no longer is a Walter Cronkite that everyone trusts implicitly. And there are fewer and fewer people lately who fearlessly proclaim common sense truth, as George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens did.
It's a very jaded view, but I think I agree in the general sense.
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.
you got some examples?
[flagged]
those are well documented. i was talking about this statement
> People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people.
particularly
> are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people
what are some examples of those same people being okay with this?
edit: i did a quick search and couldn't find any examples where the writer of this piece did what you claim.
I'm going to answer this is good faith, but I suspect you know exactly what I am talking about. I meant people in the plural, generic categorical sense - in the context of the public discourse. I am not picking out this author in particular, but the rather the institutions such as MIT Technology Review that frame the public debate. As an example, see how the NY Times covered these stories - that is what I meant by people - the people who contribute to the public debate.
- [deleted]