## Level Up Your Understanding: Tech Won’t Fix Politics (and That’s Okay)
We live in a world obsessed with solutions. A new app for everything, a digital fix for every social ill. But what happens when the problem isn’t a bug, but a broken system? In his insightful piece “Technology Does Not Solve Political Problems – How Things Work | Hamilton Nolan,” Hamilton Nolan throws a well-aimed grenade into the tech-utopia fantasy.
Join us as we dissect Nolan’s argument, exploring the complex relationship between technology and politics. We’ll delve into why relying solely on tech to solve complex societal issues is a dangerous oversimplification, and discover the crucial role real-world action and human connection play in shaping a better future.
The Disappearance of Journalism
As the tech industry continues to shape the world around us, it’s essential to examine the impact of technological changes on the media industry. The story of Portfolio, a glossy business magazine launched in 2007, serves as a cautionary tale. Despite its promising start, the magazine’s web staff was laid off, and it eventually folded in 2009. The demise of Portfolio marked the beginning of the end of the good days of print media.
The Shift to Online Media
In contrast to Portfolio, the online media industry seemed promising, with many writers like myself benefiting from the shift. However, the story of The Messenger, an online media platform that folded recently, paints a grim picture. The death of online media is not a transformation but a disappearance, and the journalism jobs being slashed are not migrating to new publications.
The reporters being laid off are not going to get jobs at an intriguing news startup in a few months. They are going to get jobs outside of journalism because the journalism jobs have simply been eradicated. This is not a case of creative destruction, but just destruction.
The Consequences of Journalism’s Demise
Besides fringe revenue streams, there are two basic ways publications make money: subscriptions and advertising. As ad revenue has plummeted, many publications have tried to increase subscription revenue to fill the hole. Supporting a publication purely with subscriptions is possible for very small places, but it’s not a viable solution for larger publications.
Hamilton Nolan’s article “Technology Does Not Solve Political Problems” highlights the limitations of technological solutions in addressing complex social issues. Nolan argues that technological advances do not change the way power is distributed in society. If the hand that holds the dynamite wants to use it to clear away rocks, you get great new roads. If the hand that holds the dynamite wants to use it to make bombs to drop on neighbors, you get mass death.
The Incomplete Understanding of How Things Work
The tech industry’s assumption that technological progress is the key driver of increased human well-being is critically incomplete. Alfred Nobel’s invention of dynamite contributed to war, not peace. Similarly, the widespread availability of cheap high-speed internet and smartphones has produced the biggest individual fortunes, increased inequality, and consolidated more power in a smaller number of hands.
The Arab Spring was planned on Facebook, but it failed. Genocides have also been planned on social media, and they succeeded. The world’s richest man spent $44 billion to buy a social media platform and used it to help elect a fascist. Information control has become so centralized on a small number of platforms that the world’s richest man saw fit to spend $44 billion to buy a social media platform, and used it to help elect a fascist.
The Need for Nuance in Technological Solutions
The importance of considering multiple perspectives in technological development cannot be overstated. Technology can be used to reinforce existing power dynamics, and the implications for social justice are far-reaching. The need for critical thinking in a world dominated by technology.
Discussions about the economy become “What will AI mean for the economy?” Discussions of politics become “How will new tech help my side win the next election?” Discussions of climate change become “How fast can we innovate ways to capture carbon in the atmosphere?” Discussions of culture become “Is AI making good art?” The consequences of such thinking can be devastating.
Conclusion
Nolan’s piece isn’t just a critique of Silicon Valley’s utopian fantasies; it’s a call to arms. He argues that blindly trusting technology to solve political problems is naive, even dangerous. It ignores the messy realities of human nature, power dynamics, and the inherent complexities of social structures. We’re not talking about some futuristic dystopia here, but about the very real dangers of outsourcing our political responsibility to algorithms and expecting a neat, binary solution to issues that demand nuanced, human-led solutions. The implications are profound. If we continue to cede control to technology, we risk exacerbating existing inequalities, silencing dissent, and further eroding democratic principles. The future isn’t about choosing between technology and politics; it’s about learning to wield technology responsibly, ethically, and with a clear understanding of its limitations. We need to demand transparency, accountability, and human oversight in the development and implementation of these powerful tools. Otherwise, we risk creating a world where the algorithms decide our fate, leaving us powerless to shape our own destiny. The question isn’t whether technology can solve our problems, but whether we, as a society, are willing to confront the challenges head-on and forge a future where technology serves humanity, not the other way around.
