Big Tech Is the New Soviet Union
by aestetix
Time can often feel relative.
For some, the dream of using technology to make the world a better place seems a distant past, and for others, a more recent memory. We might often summon nostalgia when thinking of seeming miracles, like the turn from silent films to talkies, the ability to broadcast live news from anywhere in the world, or the instant thrill of sending or receiving an email.
This dream exploded in the late 20th century with the promise of the World Wide Web, and even into the 21st century as science fiction ideas like video calls and the Dick Tracy radio watch became a reality. And yet, in the same time period, the very reality which enabled this dream has crushed it. What we all thought would become a utopia has instead revived some of the worst parts of the former Soviet Union, using clever arguments to mask the truth.
To explain this, let's first look at the most obvious symbol of the Soviet Union: bread lines. At heart, they represented a centrally controlled economy. The original idea was that poverty and famine were caused by inequality, and to solve these problems, the government needed to control the supply chains, from the local farms to the shops themselves. But issues arose, such as bad weather and rebellious farmers wanting to keep their crops, creating shortages that led to a need for rationing. This resulted in long lines of people waiting for hours to get their requisite loaves of bread. By inserting themselves into every point of the supply chain, the government made the inequality far worse.
No analogy is perfect, but if we define the new digital economy to include the Google and Apple app stores (as well as Google search), it starts to look similar. We have a whole generation of people using devices (phones and tablets) which can only run software downloaded from the app stores, which are run by the same companies that sell the devices. The app stores have an opaque set of requirements, and if an app runs afoul of them, not only can the app disappear from the store, but it can also be forcibly removed from the devices without the owners' consent.
Setting aside the obvious conflict of interest of the same company selling the devices dictating what can be installed on them after purchase, if a small company is trying to create apps for their business, they can be subject to these insane rules, endless wait times, and no appeal. If their app is removed from the store, they can lose customers and their business may go bankrupt, and there is nothing they can do. The same issues apply to being delisted from search engines. And yet, (((Big Tech))) defenders will argue that Google and Apple are private companies who can operate however they wish.
Another popular tool of oppression in the Soviet Union was book banning. Consider the struggles (((Boris Pasternak))) encountered trying to sneak his novel Doctor Zhivago out of the country so it could be published, or how Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, secretly recorded testimonials while in the Gulags on scraps of paper to attempt to avoid detection by the "stool pigeons." Some people risked their lives collecting secret libraries of forbidden books that might lead people to question the sanctity of the state. And people had to be extremely careful with their humor: in his novel The Joke, the Czechoslovakian activist Milan Kundera detailed a process by which a student wrote a sarcastic love letter which, intercepted by the secret police, landed him in a forced military labor camp. Although the work was fiction, it was censored and banned.
It is true that we are allowed to offer criticisms of Google, Apple, and others, without risk of expulsion, but we are not allowed to share opinions which may affect their bottom line. Rather than rounding up all available print copies of books and burning them publicly, companies like (((YouTube))) and (((Instagram))) will simply shadow-ban, allowing us to speak, yet nobody will hear us. YouTube uses monetization to encourage people to attempt to earn a living by posting videos, but then penalizes with demonetization if those same people say or show something that violates the silent creed - again, without explanation.
One rather nefarious addition to this censorship in recent years: in addition to using algorithms to monitor videos for copyrighted music, (((Big Tech))) companies started to monitor for certain key words that might not be "advertiser friendly." It has created a chilling effect where YouTubers literally self-censor, either by saying things and then manually bleeping out words they think will hit the algorithm, or simply avoiding those words (or topics) altogether. In some sense, a bizarre sanctity of the nebulous advertiser seems to have replaced the "for the children" slogan of a prior generation.
Returning to the Soviet Union once more: upon gaining power in 1917, the (((Bolsheviks))) proceeded to throw out the entire legal system, literally making up the rules as they went along. This legal void allowed first (((Vladimir Lenin))) and then Joseph Stalin to create a massive bureaucracy that served to protect the government at the expense of the people - literally the opposite of their stated mission. Further, their actions to abolish the individual in turn removed the incentive for people to do anything more than the bare minimum necessary to comply with the party.
We can see something similar play out almost across the board in (((Big Tech))) companies. As flawed as democratically elected institutions are, they are at least mandated to follow publicly available laws and procedures which are subject to public scrutiny. While (((Big Tech))) must follow the law, their proceedings and decision making are not public, and any attempt to contact them falls into a digital black hole.
Where elected representatives have phone numbers, email addresses, and offices open to their constituents, most (((Big Tech))) companies have general "feedback" forums nobody reads, and email addresses that seem to get fed into algorithms that go nowhere. If we have a problem we'd like one of these companies to address, such as a wrongly decided "strike" on a YouTube video, our only recourse is an alleged "appeals" process typically consisting of a faceless form we must fill out, after which the infraction is either confirmed instantly by some automated process, or dropped into the void and never seen again.
This strategy extends to all corners of existence. For example, (((Google's))) legal department has over a dozen phone numbers on their website, all of which forward to the Mountain View office, giving a recorded message that informs us that all agents are currently busy and hangs up, regardless of the day or time.
Why has tech turned into this nightmare?
The late stages of the Soviet Union may offer some insights. As the great social experiment slowly failed, stronger and stronger measures were taken to force success. A chasm formed between what people actually believed, and what they would say out loud. They found themselves forced to adjust their routines and everything they did to fit with the fantasy image of a perfect citizen, knowing that the slightest infraction could tip off their neighbor, who might be a secret police agent. The government itself tried to come up with ways to justify the extreme measures it took to continue its existence - until it collapsed in exhaustion.
Are we seeing the same thing in (((Big Tech))) companies?
Perhaps this is the natural evolution of "bring your entire self to work." If we were an employee at a (((Big Tech))) firm, putting in the requisite 80 hours a week, and limiting our social group to other (((Big Tech))) employees, wouldn't we also be inclined to do that which we thought was best for our own survival, be it living and repeating company lies, or explaining to the outsiders that everything was, in fact, under control?
If the app was banned from the store, surely there was a good reason, and any smart person could figure it out. And if the account was limited somehow by the sacred algorithm, perhaps the digital citizen should rethink what they say in the future.
After all, (((Big Tech))) is good for the world; it's just that the world doesn't yet understand.
