Oh yes, definitely. In Germany, for example, it’s the far-right AfD, which is essentially a direct copy of MAGA. Unfortunately, the AfD is also very successful, as it receives massive support from the very same billionaires who made MAGA big in the U.S.—such as Musk, who gives them significant reach via Twitter and also financial support.
To me, this seems to be the dark side of the internet: The logical centralization of services that comes with the medium has unfortunately led to an even smaller group of unscrupulous billionaires now controlling the most important information platforms used by people worldwide.
I believe that what we are witnessing today—in my view, a kind of new monarchy of the super-rich—is the direct consequence of the network effect inherent in the logic of the internet: This effect has not only made these people astronomically rich, but also ensures that they can now influence public discourse even more extremely to their advantage than was the case in the days of traditional journalism.
This was already a significant problem with the rise of social media, but with the increasing prevalence of cloud-based LLMs, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, the discourse will shift in a way that benefits billionaires on an unprecedented scale. This is simply because deploying the relevant cloud AI models is so expensive that only multi-billion-dollar corporations can offer them—giving them full control over what people experience as reality.
The impact on democracies will be significant.
Democracy, after all, requires informed citizens. But if that is no longer guaranteed—because all the essential sources of information that the average citizen uses have been brought into line with the billionaires’ agenda—democratic processes can no longer function. Then people will simply vote for those fascist parties that serve as the billionaire class’s henchmen and get their support for doing so.
I am convinced that this is the explanation for the resurgence of fascism worldwide: this ideology is ideal for diverting attention from who is actually the citizens’ worst enemy. So that’s what the billionaires want.
you are conflating the internet with capitalism and its old propaganda though.
the internet was initially idealized in a decentralized way, and the problems of profit-driven, proprietary, centralized and monopolized software were being talked about for decades now.
i’ve been hearing about facebook testing out emotional manipulation, addictive designs and personality profiling for the better part of a decade now to little fanfare.
democracy was never a thing in the west, it’s just that we reached the find out stage where they don’t need to hide it anymore.
Yes, I am very familiar with the ideals of the early Internet utopians, and I consider them noble goals.
The Internet has undoubtedly advanced humanity in some ways. It has democratized knowledge and improved many things. At least for a time.
Nevertheless, in my view, its monetization according to the logic of capitalism has, in many respects, unfortunately led to the exact opposite of what the Internet utopians had in mind: Today, power is unfortunately concentrated in even fewer hands, because people, sadly, do not use the internet as a decentralized medium, but instead flock by the millions to the same centralized platforms—even when it is completely obvious who the inhuman individuals are who run them.
The best example of this is Twitter. This platform is under the exclusive control of Elon Musk. He uses it to achieve his goals, which are in complete opposition to the interests of the general public. Through it, he spreads hate, xenophobia, and misinformation. Yet people do not leave this platform.
This is just one example among countless others.
In short: It is by no means the medium itself that is harmful; it is the way people use it.
I myself have not yet lost faith in humanity, but I am also a realist, and therefore I can unfortunately only conclude that, on the whole, the internet has primarily served to make the exploitative elites even more powerful.
In the broader public sphere, in my opinion, it has unfortunately not led to the democratization of resources and knowledge, but rather to centralization and autocracy.
In my opinion, this will soon result in a civilizational regression—this seems to me the inevitable consequence of the widespread use of LLMs, as they will certainly be abused by those in power, which, in my view, is already happening. Again, Musk, with his blunt approach, is an illustrative example of this as well.
I’m afraid this is a pretty pessimistic outlook, but unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that optimism would be appropriate.
Oh yes, definitely. In Germany, for example, it’s the far-right AfD, which is essentially a direct copy of MAGA. Unfortunately, the AfD is also very successful, as it receives massive support from the very same billionaires who made MAGA big in the U.S.—such as Musk, who gives them significant reach via Twitter and also financial support.
To me, this seems to be the dark side of the internet: The logical centralization of services that comes with the medium has unfortunately led to an even smaller group of unscrupulous billionaires now controlling the most important information platforms used by people worldwide.
I believe that what we are witnessing today—in my view, a kind of new monarchy of the super-rich—is the direct consequence of the network effect inherent in the logic of the internet: This effect has not only made these people astronomically rich, but also ensures that they can now influence public discourse even more extremely to their advantage than was the case in the days of traditional journalism.
This was already a significant problem with the rise of social media, but with the increasing prevalence of cloud-based LLMs, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, the discourse will shift in a way that benefits billionaires on an unprecedented scale. This is simply because deploying the relevant cloud AI models is so expensive that only multi-billion-dollar corporations can offer them—giving them full control over what people experience as reality.
The impact on democracies will be significant.
Democracy, after all, requires informed citizens. But if that is no longer guaranteed—because all the essential sources of information that the average citizen uses have been brought into line with the billionaires’ agenda—democratic processes can no longer function. Then people will simply vote for those fascist parties that serve as the billionaire class’s henchmen and get their support for doing so.
I am convinced that this is the explanation for the resurgence of fascism worldwide: this ideology is ideal for diverting attention from who is actually the citizens’ worst enemy. So that’s what the billionaires want.
you are conflating the internet with capitalism and its old propaganda though.
the internet was initially idealized in a decentralized way, and the problems of profit-driven, proprietary, centralized and monopolized software were being talked about for decades now.
i’ve been hearing about facebook testing out emotional manipulation, addictive designs and personality profiling for the better part of a decade now to little fanfare.
democracy was never a thing in the west, it’s just that we reached the find out stage where they don’t need to hide it anymore.
Yes, I am very familiar with the ideals of the early Internet utopians, and I consider them noble goals.
The Internet has undoubtedly advanced humanity in some ways. It has democratized knowledge and improved many things. At least for a time.
Nevertheless, in my view, its monetization according to the logic of capitalism has, in many respects, unfortunately led to the exact opposite of what the Internet utopians had in mind: Today, power is unfortunately concentrated in even fewer hands, because people, sadly, do not use the internet as a decentralized medium, but instead flock by the millions to the same centralized platforms—even when it is completely obvious who the inhuman individuals are who run them.
The best example of this is Twitter. This platform is under the exclusive control of Elon Musk. He uses it to achieve his goals, which are in complete opposition to the interests of the general public. Through it, he spreads hate, xenophobia, and misinformation. Yet people do not leave this platform.
This is just one example among countless others.
In short: It is by no means the medium itself that is harmful; it is the way people use it.
I myself have not yet lost faith in humanity, but I am also a realist, and therefore I can unfortunately only conclude that, on the whole, the internet has primarily served to make the exploitative elites even more powerful.
In the broader public sphere, in my opinion, it has unfortunately not led to the democratization of resources and knowledge, but rather to centralization and autocracy.
In my opinion, this will soon result in a civilizational regression—this seems to me the inevitable consequence of the widespread use of LLMs, as they will certainly be abused by those in power, which, in my view, is already happening. Again, Musk, with his blunt approach, is an illustrative example of this as well.
I’m afraid this is a pretty pessimistic outlook, but unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that optimism would be appropriate.