1867 marked a time when railroad tycoons were amassing influence throughout the U.S. A band of disgruntled farmers, tired of tech magnates manipulating market prices by controlling the transportation of their crops, chose to unite and form an association called The Grange. This agricultural workforce felt exploited as these industrialists could set exorbitant prices and essentially determine the farmers’ profit (or lack thereof).
Congress, heavily influenced by Big Railroad, didn’t establish the Interstate Commerce Commission until 20 years later. It wasn’t until two decades after its formation that President Theodore Roosevelt provided the commission with the necessary authority to curb the railroad industry’s long-standing exploitation.
A strange invocation. Angry Farmers, some kind of new band?
As a keen observer, I can’t help but notice the striking similarities between today’s world and certain narratives that are popular in Hollywood and various creative industries. It’s like we’re witnessing the rise of advanced technology, wielded by a select few with immense power, who manage to evade regulation for their own financial gains, often leaving ordinary citizens in a lurch. The notion of AI-driven tech companies potentially displacing human workforce seems increasingly plausible each day.
The connection Tom Wheeler, a former FCC chair and current fellow at the Brookings Institution, draws in his 2023 book “Techlash: Who Controls the Rules in the Digital Gilded Age?” is worth noting. This parallel became relevant this week with news that some anti-ICE protesters in downtown Los Angeles had requested Waymos (Google’s self-driving taxis) to deliberately destroy them. This could be seen as an example of a “techlash,” a term you’re likely to hear more often in the coming months, along with the concept itself. Interestingly, while Wheeler popularized the term, the portmanteau representing backlash against Big Tech was actually coined by “The Economist” five years prior.
We’re living in a pivotal, risky era of technology, where artificial intelligence (AI) is swiftly gathering data with potential outcomes that are still largely unclear and unchecked. As machine intelligence expands at an alarming rate, it has the power to increase wealth among companies but decrease employment opportunities; make systems more streamlined but erode privacy; and improve efficiency in life yet weaken human connections. It seems that a handful of abandoned cars along the 101 freeway can’t bear the burden of these consequences. But perhaps they can?
I reached out to Wheeler to get his perspective on the DTLA acts and their connection to the techlash movement. Wheeler expressed doubt that the Waymo cars being targeted was a deliberate act of rebellion against Big Tech; instead, he believed it was probably because the vehicles were an easy target for vandalism. I don’t share his viewpoint, but ultimately, it doesn’t change the bigger picture.
Wheeler is optimistic that as grassroots activists and Washington policymakers take action, we can develop a technology regulation policy that puts humans first, rather than the current trajectory.
Wheeler, former FCC chair during the second Obama administration, points out that so far, the ‘tech bros’ have essentially shaped regulations to their advantage. He suggests we should instead create regulations that prioritize the greater good and serve the public’s best interests.
Wheeler is being serious. Only a few months ago, Trump rescinded Biden’s executive order regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI), which wasn’t overly restrictive to start with. The current “Big Beautiful” bill contains a provision that penalizes or forbids any state from implementing AI regulations. Compared to Europe, we are far from matching their progress in this area; they have already developed an AI Act capable of regulating potential harms.
Just like Wheeler notes, the pace of technological advancement in today’s Silicon Valley, particularly in AI, is significantly faster compared to the time we had with railroads. Forty years in transit technology equates to 400 years when considering modern Silicon Valley’s rapid development. In fact, even four years might be too long.
Wheeler strongly endorses the federal agency proposed by senators Michael Bennet and Pete Welch. In his view, such an agency is crucial for addressing the backlash against technology companies and preventing them from overstepping boundaries. He argues that traditional methods of regulating industries won’t be effective; instead, a modern system focused on the overall harm a company causes should be implemented.
As a gamer, I’ve come to realize that the uproar against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Big Tech might seem like unrelated issues at first glance, but upon closer inspection, they share striking similarities. Both movements are essentially a response to inequality and a lack of empathy towards humanity. When you consider the government’s close ties with Palantir, the enigmatic tech firm that enables advanced AI analysis of gathered data for possible surveillance purposes, it becomes clearer how these causes start to overlap.
Wendy Liu, a former programmer who is now advocating for technology, notes that people are recognizing the connections between the harmful aspects of the tech sector and the current government,” she explains. Wendy, author of the 2020 document Abolish Silicon Valley, which proposed significantly curtailing the power of the tech industry, adds that ideas once considered extreme now seem natural to her.
The anti-ICE protests are more than just about immigration. They represent a stance against an administration that devalues humanity, and damaging the property of a corporation working to replace human labor aligns with this viewpoint, as it’s seen as defending human values.
In a nuanced examination, while I may contest the distinctness of political factions, various figures within the pro-MAGA camp like Sen. Josh Hawley are targeting Big Tech sectors. Moderate Republicans such as Ohio congressman Warren Davidson have voiced concerns about the Palantir agreement. Surprisingly, Marjorie Taylor Greene has expressed opposition to certain AI restrictions, advocating for their removal from proposed bills. Furthermore, Elon Musk, who was once associated with tech circles, remains a wildcard in this scenario. The term “tech right” may appear uniform, but the reality is that it encompasses diverse viewpoints, even among those who supported Trump’s inauguration.
However, attempting to mobilize them or other elected officials with strategies similar to those seen during protests that leverage backlash against technology might prove tricky.
Self-driving Waymos or robots that navigate sidewalks delivering coffee exhibit a surprising human-like charm; being immersed in a media landscape dominated by Wall-E and Johnny 5, we instinctively sympathize with them. Even when a Waymo cautiously maneuvers before me while a human driver recklessly crosses the street endangering my safety, I can’t help but empathize – it’s as if they are innocent beings being threatened by our own destructive tendencies. Although I understand that this attachment is an illusion, its impact is undeniable.
The risk in criticizing Waymo is that it provides an opportunity for large tech companies to imply, both explicitly and implicitly, “see these overzealous critics, harassing harmless robots that have caused no harm.” This allows them to assume a defensive posture.
Instead of using autonomous vehicles to symbolize the displacement of Uber drivers, it might be more appropriate to use the Uber drivers themselves for this purpose. Why destroy driverless cars when we can assemble thousands of drivers in a powerful and eye-catching demonstration? This approach would be less destructive and more constructive, serving as a warning to everyone who could potentially lose their jobs due to self-driving taxis.
In many ways, this scenario is a testament to how the roles have reversed, with Uber appearing as the ‘humanist good guys’, given all the evidence that it has been gradually increasing the percentage it takes from drivers. Alternatively, they could follow in the footsteps of Hollywood Guilds during their strikes two years ago – rally together to show the impact automation can have on human lives. This is a strategy other industries will likely adopt for years to come.
Wheeler concurs that demonstrating against job displacement through targeting automation solutions is a mistaken approach.
He asserts that shattering machinery like the Luddites did during the early 19th-century English movement to disrupt automated clothing production won’t succeed,” he says, referring to the group named after a (possibly fictional) worker Ned Ludd. “It’s important to remember that the Luddites ultimately failed in their efforts.
Liu has a different perspective. He tends to be more traditional in his actions and wouldn’t resort to damaging a vehicle. However, he can empathize with those who feel the urge to vent their anger by setting something ablaze. In his opinion, it’s the least harmful method available since it doesn’t cause harm to people; essentially, it’s just corporate property being affected. Moreover, he questions what other symbols of destruction are accessible – is burning down a tech company’s office the only option?
It seems that her argument implies that such destructive actions may be essential for a protest movement to gain public notice, as exemplified by the Boston Tea Party incident.
I’ll let the protesters decide the best course of action, but there’s something valid in Liu’s point of view. The dangers associated with computer models taking over – such as job displacement, disinformation, bias, outsourcing of human thought, and reduced human interaction – can be hard to spot; unlike mechanical innovations like looms or railroads, a thinking program doesn’t physically assert itself. In this context, a self-driving taxi, though not perfect, might serve as the closest representation we have.
As a passionate advocate, I eagerly anticipate the upcoming months to reveal the impact of using car-burning as a form of protest. Will this action lead us towards the spirit of the Boston Tea Party or the destructive path of the Luddite Revolution? Regardless, it’s clear that the techlash movement will expand, igniting change figuratively if not literally. However, I sincerely hope that we achieve some positive outcomes before our economy and society are consumed by these flames.
Read More
2025-06-11 18:55