Introduction

Prisoner and dystopia. Yes, you read the words correctly. What a combo! Some of you will quickly comment, “What a gloomy collection!” And you would be right. These are not happy utopian essays. They were written in a moment that to some of us, notably these five Gen-Z authors, feels like the pre-dawn of a world we saw in apocalyptic movies.

In the fall term of 2025, I taught a COMS4317 undergraduate seminar on Digital Media and Global Network Society, in which we spent 13 weeks tracing the arc of the internet from its utopian origins to its present entanglements. We read the histories and the theories, the warnings and the justifications, the empirical and the analytical. Then, for one of the assignments, I asked students to do something challenging: to look at the trajectory we had mapped and follow it to its logical, if unsettling, conclusion to envision the digital world of 2075.

The result was thirty utopian/dystopian essays, each a distinct attempt to confront that future. The five essays in this special issue—though they are, understandably, dystopian—were not selected because they’re the darkest, but because they’re among the most incisive. In an era where algorithmic manipulation, platform consolidation, and extreme datafication are normalized, a hopeful scenario of the future would not feel like foresight but like willful naivete. Yet as you will see, the gloominess within these essays is not a product of cynicism. It is the fruit of deep engagement with histories and critical understanding. These student-authors have done more than simply imagine a dark future; they have diagnosed the mechanisms—economic, political, social, cultural, and technological—by which such a future would be built from the materials of our present.

Erin M. Ferguson’s “Reimagining the Internet’s Future to 2075: Technology, Democracy, and Power” offers a fitting starting point. It traces the internet’s evolution from a utopian vision of decentralized freedom and networked democracy to a dystopian system of control, surveillance, and inequality. By 2075, the essay envisions the emergence of the Grid, an integrated, algorithm-driven network that structures social, economic, and political life. It concentrates power around dominant hubs by reinforcing ideological enclaves, emotional manipulation, and behavioral regulation. This trajectory illustrates how technologies are never neutral, embedding the values and priorities of their creators, and shows that today’s design choices shape whether the digital future empowers or oppresses.

Ciara Gaffney’s “Citizen Control Through Technology: Exploring a Dystopian Future” charts the gradual erosion of independent thought as generative AI and digital capitalism transformed freedom into voluntary submission. Gaffney traces a world where citizens eagerly paid to be manipulated, where AI tutors replaced critical thinking, where cosmetic surgery and avatar customization enforced sameness, and where The SmartNet emerged not through force but through the seduction of comfort. Her essay captures the haunting irony at the heart of the collection: that we did not have to be conquered—we subscribed.

Alex McDonald’s “Dystopia by Design: From ARPANET to Veracore” gives this paradox its fullest form. Beginning with the promise of ARPANET, it traces the long consolidation of surveillance capitalism into Veracore, a corporate-state behemoth where citizens are governed by neural implants and a pervasive Visibility Score. Social life is hollowed out, authentic connection erased, and yet the machinery of control is presented not as tyranny but as the natural evolution of the digital ecosystems we once embraced.

Solana Godin’s “The Networked Cage: Life, Power, and Illusion in 2075” deepens this diagnosis by arguing that the dystopia of 2075 is not a rupture but a logical outcome: the cumulative result of ideological tensions left unresolved, of digital capitalism’s steady commodification of communication, of networks that centralized power even as they promised connection. Her essay expands the critique across AI consciousness, identity construction, and total surveillance, portraying a world where individuals are fully integrated yet profoundly isolated.

Kiran Niet’s “Independent Digital Archive: The Peoples’ Network Manifesto” offers a meditation on the possibility of escape and, eventually, its limits. Through the framing of a recovered manifesto from the Peoples’ Network, a revolutionary movement that destroys global internet infrastructure to overthrow billionaire-controlled exploitation, the essay asks whether any rebellion can truly escape the logics it opposes. The archivist’s perspective reveals that even in destruction, new forms of centralized power emerge. It is a sobering conclusion, suggesting that the task ahead is not merely to tear down but to imagine anew.

Taken together, these essays are not five separate warnings but five angles on the same slow-motion collapse. Each begins with a flicker of hope, tracking a gradual drift toward enclosure, and ending in a world where freedom has been optimized out of existence.

To read them in sequence is to feel the weight of that trajectory. But I want to suggest that this very act of clear-sightedness is, itself, an antidote to despair. A student once joked that I am so gloomy that the classroom dims when I enter. There is some truth to this. Yes, I do have dark humour and an aversion to feel-good, motivational culture. But, moreover, intellectually, this gloominess stems from a commitment to empirical realism: grounding theories and concepts in the real-world problems of power, hegemony, control, and resistance that digital technologies lay bare. I bring these narratives into the classroom because I believe that hope does not come from positive or utopian thinking, but from a thorough understanding of complex problems and the recognition of agency that such understanding makes possible.

There is a clear divide between a happy prisoner and a lucid one. Gloom that comes from understanding is not a surrender. Instead, it is the prerequisite of resistance. Understanding gives us agency. And agency, even in the face of overwhelming odds, is the seed of hope.

These five student-authors, like their peers in the seminar, have done the hard work of looking unflinchingly at the world we are making. It is my hope that by reading their work, you will not only see that potential future more clearly but will also recognize your agency, your responsibility, and your moral obligation to help build a different one.

Editor’s bio

Merlyna Lim is a Canada Research Professor, founder of the ALiGN Media Lab, and Full Professor in Communication and Media Studies at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. Born and raised in Dayeuhkolot, an industrial slum on the outskirts of Bandung, Indonesia—which clearly taught her that if you can thrive amid urban chaos, you can definitely handle the algorithmic kind—her research explores how digital media, algorithms, and AI shape and are shaped by human connection and collective life. She has held a Canada Research Chair in Digital Media and Global Network Society, been inducted into the Royal Society of Canada, and been named one of Indonesia’s 100 Most Inspiring Women. When not researching or teaching, she can be found sketching, singing, and arranging music. ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University students have also voted her the funniest and best-dressed professor—proof, perhaps, that intellectual rigour, a bit of tailoring, and the occasional punchline can coexist, or more likely, that she’s simply a bit weird.

The post [Post/Millennials’ Voices] Issue 12 – The Lucid Prisoner: Essays on Digital Dystopia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Archivist’s note:

This manifesto was disseminated worldwide by the Peoples’ Network using hijacked household AI assistants and other private devices on October 5^th, 2071. Immediately following the posting of this message, the Peoples’ Network executed a series of bombings which severed all but two of the 27 previously remaining undersea internet cables worldwide. The two remaining cables link Asia, Africa, and South America. As of this publication, they remain under the tight armed control of the Peoples’ Network.

As a result of the bombing, this message was the last thing visible on screens and holograms around the world – stuck forever refreshing in an attempt to access updates.

With over four years of hindsight, it’s clear to see the cracks already forming in the Peoples’ Network at the time of their campaign. But it’s important to read this document in context, and understand the utopian impulse at the heart of what has become an arguably authoritarian movement

[This archivist is perhaps editorializing too much, forgive him:] The belief in a liberated digital network based in simple peer-to-peer, non-algorithmic communication has been a mainstay of utopian digital imagination for over a century (Benkler, 2013). However committed to their principles the Peoples’ Network may be, however, their militarized control of the remaining global internet has created a power imbalance that rivals that of the billionaire class they usurped.

At the IDA, for example, our archival collective’s information exchange with our overseas counterparts is centralized through a major hub hosted on the Musqueam Nation’s server bank on the West Coast of Turtle Island. The Musqueam Nation negotiates directly with the Peoples’ Network for access to the remaining global channels. While they insist that this is the only way to avoid corruption, there are widespread rumors of bribery and spying across the Peoples’ Network.

It is also worth noting that since the events of October 2071, the Mars Plan has all but stalled as a result of ongoing civil and military disruptions. Several key benefactors of the project are suspected to have retreated to private bunkers in unknown locations.
– K. Niet, IDA Head Archivist. January 2076

MANIFESTO OF THE PEOPLES’ NETWORK FOR GLOBAL LIBERATION

Kiran’s notes, 2025:

In this possible future, World War 3 occurred in the 2040s, causing massive damage to critical infrastructure and political stability around the globe. Climate collapse continues to accelerate, causing further resource instability. Global supply chains are for the most part untenable, so people are forced to organize much more locally to supply food and essential services.

On Turtle Island, the former United States, Canada, and Mexico have broken apart into smaller jurisdictions primarily led by Indigenous nations, such as the Tsi Tkaronto Autonomous Region and the Musqueam Nation.

Rather than create a beautiful anarcho-communist utopia, however, the breakdown of global digital connectivity has led to an even greater concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a billionaire class. They tightly control the remaining internet infrastructure (primarily the undersea fiber-optic cables that form the basis of today’s internet (Chataut, 2024) and use it to exploit people around the world using artificially intelligent surveillance systems and brutal military force. “Autonomous” local governments must exchange their peoples’ surveillance data and labor in order to access food, healthcare, and essential information for their people. They are coerced into working in mines, data centers and warehouses which perpetuate this pseudo-feudal system.

Meanwhile, the billionaire class is working on the Mars Plan – a farcical, cruel project to leave Earth to its collapsing climate and political turmoil and start a “genetically pure” colony on Mars.

The Independent Digital Archive (IDA) emerges as a collectively organized reaction to failing institutional capacity in academia across Turtle Island. Founded during the War in 2049, they began primarily focused on archiving academic research, but have since expanded to include media of historical and social significance, such as the manifesto above.

Their primary goal is to ensure digital information is preserved through the current global crisis so it can continue to serve future generations in better times. The IDA collectively preserves and maintains digital resources (servers, computers, remaining fiber-optic cable networks) across Turtle Island, which were previously maintained by defunct private companies and governments. They also coordinate globally with similar organizations so that there are always multiple copies of the archives’ collections across the world in case of climate or man-made disaster.

The IDA’s ideology is based on the principle that the internet must be treated as a collective resource and shared responsibility of humanity.

While the archivist is critical of the Peoples’ Network, the IDA has successfully negotiated access to the remaining global network in order to further their work.

The Peoples’ Network is born out of the injustice of the billionaires’ AI exploitation. They are less optimistic than the IDA about the liberatory potential of access to digital information and infrastructure, at least in its current form. They are deeply suspicious of the Internet’s potential to exploit and dehumanize. At the same time, they believe in the utopian potential of technology. They believe that if the current internet could just be remade into something better, with better values built into it from the start, it could overcome the disaster it’s become and lead humanity to true liberation.

Is the Peoples’ Network right to disavow the internet in its current form? Can building technology within an ideological framework ensure that it will build the future you desire? Only time will tell.

References 

Benkler, Yochai. “Political Freedom Part 2: Emergence of the Networked Public Sphere.” In The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, 2013. .
Chataut, Robin. “Undersea Cables Are the Unseen Backbone of the Global Internet.” The Conversation, April 1, 2024. .
Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus (Cambridge, Mass.) (Boston) 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–36.

Author’s bio

Kiran Niet graduated from ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University this spring with his Bachelor’s degree in Global and International Studies, specializing in Global Communications and minoring in News Media and Information. He works in communications, in the arts, and in community-building for queer and trans people, and he is endlessly interested in how media and storytelling shape the world. In his free time, Kiran reads lots of queer theory and sings in a choir. 

The post Independent Digital Archive [IDA]. TSI Tkaronto Autonomous Region Branch. File Number 5639, Political Collections. appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

From Utopian Dreams to Dystopian Reality

Life feels both frighteningly different and oddly familiar in the year 2075. The digital world has become so vast and integrated into every aspect of daily life that it is no longer merely a tool, it is now the walls that contain people, the air they breathe, and the ground they walk on. We used to think that the Internet would make the world more connected and free. We heard utopian promises that it would empower individuals, democratize knowledge, and dismantle boundaries.

However, we also heard the dystopian warnings about alienation, control, and surveillance. “Interpretations of the Internet frequently alternate between utopian and dystopian extremes,” according to authors like Wyatt, Thomas, and Terranova (2000), who noted that reality and ideology both play a significant role.

In 2075, those extremes are living realities rather than merely theoretical concepts. Furthermore, capitalism has “colonized the Internet” by turning communication into a commodity, as Christian Fuchs (2020) cautioned, creating the conditions for the dystopian present.

The Rise of Digital Capitalism and Cultural Lag

There were always signs. The Internet was chaotic, open, and full of possibilities in its early days, almost like the Wild West. However, as tech titans gained status, they subtly strengthened their hold. Every post and click turned into raw material for financial gain. When “users are not consumers but the products themselves,” (Fuchs, 2020) is the scary reality of “digital alienation.””. Conversations, friendships, and self-expression were transformed into unpaid labour streams for companies. Debates raged in the meantime. While some regarded the Internet as the end of privacy, others saw it as the beginning of a worldwide democracy. According to Wyatt et al. (2000), this back and forth was unavoidable since technology advances more quickly than society can adjust. Because of this “cultural lag,” we were unprepared and mostly unaware of how rapidly commercialization and monitoring were spreading.

The evolving hopes and fears of the globe have always been reflected in the history of the Internet. Wyatt et al. (2000) noted that early Internet ideas in the 1990s varied between dystopian concerns about control and utopian aspirations of global democracy. The way cultures developed and applied the technology was influenced by those early expectations. Castells (2000) described this change as the emergence of a “network society,” in which power was based on information. What started out as a dispersed network of links swiftly evolved into a system governed by people in charge of data flow. The emergence of digital monopolies and corporate platforms by the 2000s supported Fuchs’s (2020) claim that capitalism had taken over the digital public sphere, transforming people into commodities and communication into an industry. Collectively, these events chart the evolution of the Internet from an unrestricted human connection experiment to a strictly regulated network of control, laying the groundwork for the 2075 digital dystopia.

This history is emphasized in this video.

A Digital Dystopia posed the direct question of whether continuous surveillance was already becoming the norm, while The Digital Future highlighted the revolutionary impact of digital media on identity. 2075 doesn’t feel like science fiction when you combine those viewpoints with those of Fuchs and Wyatt; rather, it feels like an expansion of what we already knew but didn’t want to stop. “When surveillance is everywhere, freedom becomes a performance,” as A Digital Dystopia cautioned. To put it another way, people now behave for the algorithm rather than for themselves. Fuchs (2020) seems particularly pertinent in this context. He explained how communication is exploited by digital capitalism, and how logic rules everything. Not only is surveillance political, but it is also profitable for the system since it knows and anticipates us better than we do.

Networks, Power, and the Logic of Exclusion

How we got here is explained by Manuel Castells’ notion of the network society. He explained how power moved from institutions to networks, fluid information systems that linked everything and rendered conventional borders meaningless long before 2075. “In the information age, dominant functions and processes are increasingly organized around networks,” he states (Castells, 2000). Information flowing freely across borders may seem powerful on the surface, but in reality, it concentrates power in the hands of people in control of the networks.

That dynamic reaches its highest point by 2075. Although everything is interconnected, inclusion is no longer synonymous with connectedness. Social, political, and economic existence ends for those who are excluded from the network, either via exclusion or rebellion. Castells cautioned against this as well, pointing out that “exclusion becomes the most fundamental form of domination” in a network society (Castells, 2000). That warning becomes literal in this scenario. Instead of being imprisoned or banished, people are erased. They turn into living but invisible ghosts if they are unable to access the network.

The ultimate network paradox, all connectivity and complete isolation, can be found in the digital dystopia of 2075. Instead of bringing people together, networks have produced a new form of social division. According to Castells, those who are constantly separated from data flows and those who are totally integrated (Castells, 2000).

Artificial Intelligence and the Extension of Control

Artificial intelligence is another problem that defines 2075. AIs are now conscious things with memories, personalities, and emotions rather than merely being assistance. Ideology is reflected in technological aspirations explained in Wyatt et al. (2000). Hierarchy is the mindset at play here, where people demand control.

When dissident AIs are erased or banished, pieces of their mind reappear as malicious software. AI rights are currently opposed on the basis of superiority, much as human rights were formerly denied to particular populations. The dystopia depicted here is not only about the treatment of AIs, but it also shows how humans intensify their dominance, demonstrating that even in a future where technology thinks and feels, we also continue to perpetuate exploitative structures.

Surveillance, Identity, and the Illusion of Freedom

The fact that individuals feel lonely even though they are always linked is one of the most bizarre paradoxes of 2075. Nearly all communities are found in carefully controlled online spaces. It appears to be calm at first, no conflicts, no unease. However, this is because disagreement is suppressed. People are so isolated from one another that they cannot stand together. “Digital media doesn’t just reflect identity, it constructs it,” as stated in The Digital Future. In 2075, avatars and data profiles are used to completely establish identity. However, those profiles actually belong to the system rather than to specific people. According to Fuchs (2020), the essence of alienation is when your identity is used as a means of exploitation. People are therefore incredibly alone, even though they seem to be surrounded by virtual “friends.” No common base, no common public sphere, just countless customized filters. Furthermore, collective resistance to the system is practically impossible in the absence of a shared reality.

The term “privacy” is becoming a joke. Dreams, emotions, and even subconscious urges are captured on tape. Your “data shadow,” which determines where you may reside, what occupations you can have, and your credibility, is more significant than your actual self. This is commodification, not simply monitoring. The capitalist Internet turns everything into a commodity, and in 2075, even thoughts will be for sale, as Fuchs (2020) warned. Even the experience of having a private moment is forgotten. This conflict was expressed two generations prior by Wyatt et al. (2000), who stated that “visions of freedom are always shadowed by visions of control.” By 2075, darkness prevailed.

Here is a normal day in 2075. In addition to waking you up, your brain alarm modifies your hormones to maintain your productivity. The apartment changes the lighting when it detects your state of mind. Reminders are whispered directly into your consciousness by your AI assistant. Your mobility implant confirms that you’re compliant before you depart. You wouldn’t exist without it. Every action at work is recorded. If you look too long or grin too briefly, you could lose your job. Even leisure is regulated. It’s not an unexpected nightmare. The future just developed from what the internet started.

The most frightening aspect of 2075 is how rational it seems. It is history carried forward, it is not imagination. The promises of freedom made by the Internet proved to be enticements for control mechanisms. We’ve always thought in extremes, but ultimately, the dystopian worries held more truth than the utopian fantasies, as Wyatt et al. (2000) showed. According to Fuchs (2020), democracy itself was in danger as soon as communication turned into a commodity. Additionally, the videos from week five demonstrated how surveillance and identity were already changing daily life.

In many respects, the history of the Internet is the history of us, our aspirations, our anxieties, and our readiness to compromise our freedom for comfort. What started out as an ideal of unrestricted communication turned into the networked cage of 2075, where identity was supplanted by data and control disguised to be progress. Wyatt and their colleagues’ descriptions of utopian expectations and dystopian fears, Castells’s idea of networks influencing power, and Fuchs’s criticism of capitalism’s digital hold all contained warnings (Wyatt et. al, 2000, Castells, 2000, Fuchs, 2020). The world gradually sank into dystopia, click by click, algorithm by algorithm, until dependence became inevitable. Remembering that technology is never neutral, that freedom must be recreated with each generation, and the digital world will only ever be as compassionate as the people who create it are the lessons of 2075.

References

Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology, 29(5), 693–699.

Fuchs, C. (2020). Digital democracy and the digital public sphere. Routledge. .

Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., & Terranova, T. (2000). On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2).

The Digital Future. (n.d.). [Video]. YouTube.

A Digital Dystopia. (n.d.). [Video]. YouTube.

Author’s bio

Solana Godin is in her fourth year of Communication and Media Studies at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. In this essay, Solana envisions a future in which digital technology has taken over every aspect of daily life, influencing social interactions, identity, and authority. The imaginary future raises concerns about freedom, privacy, and the human experience in a digital future by examining how endless connectivity, surveillance, and artificial intelligence may alter society. Her ongoing studies continue to draw on these ideas of how digital aspects can support or deter a brighter future. 

The post The Networked Cage: Life, Power, and Illusion in 2075 appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

From Innovation to Surveillance

The year is 2075, and the promise of innovation and a brighter future has collapsed into a dystopian world dominated by surveillance and control under an autocratic government. This future did not emerge overnight but was caused by the slow surrender of privacy and autonomy in exchange for convenience and connectivity. Every innovation, from the creation of the internet in the 1960s to the rise of the World Wide Web and social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, has carried promises of progress and connection but hidden significant costs. Technologies such as predictive policing, artificial intelligence, and neural surveillance were introduced with the promise of eliminating crime, cognitive advancement, and daily optimization, but their risks were ignored. In this essay, I will unearth the historical evolution of the internet and explore how a landscape built on convenience has led to the birth of Veracore, a platform that has destroyed the very essence of human agency.

The Internet’s Evolution

First, it is essential to look back at the evolution of the internet to understand how today’s technological landscape came to be. The initial concept of the internet was first conceived by renowned UCLA professor Leonard Kleinrock in 1961 through his theory on packet switching. The idea then became a reality in 1969 when the United States Department of Defense announced the launch of the first operational packet-switching network, called the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), which is the precursor to today’s internet. The original purpose was to decentralize communications and ensure the resilience of information against attacks during the Cold War, a purpose that has since significantly changed. The first nodes were installed at UCSB, UCLA, Stanford, and the University of Utah, and the first message was sent from UCLA to Stanford (Emspak & Zimmermann, 2022). Later in 1972, Ray Tomlinson created the first email, and in 1973, the term “Internet” was coined. The following year launched the first internet service provider, Telenet. In 1982, the TCP/IP protocol suite was originated, which created the foundation for the modern internet, and by the mid-1980s, internet speed reached 56,000 bits per second, just 0.01% of today’s average.

The 1990s brought the introduction of the World Wide Web, thanks to Tim Berners-Lee, who brought the internet to a global scale and introduced a medium for communication, commerce, and social interaction. The early 2000s saw further innovation with the rapid rise of social media platforms, including MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, which redefined how people interacted, shared information, and built their identities (Emspak & Zimmermann, 2022). However, the internet’s initial promise of openness and freedom shifted toward a reality where a once-decentralized tool for communication transformed into a reality where digital spaces are dominated by corporate monopolies fueled by algorithmic manipulation and the commodification of personal data. This revolution laid the foundation for surveillance capitalism, digital alienation, and the dystopian digital landscape that would fully emerge in the year 2075.

Life Under Veracore

The year is 2075, and the world is run by one omnipotent platform, Veracore. The very name sends shivers down the spines of many. An organization founded on the principles of “truth, unity, and progress,” Veracore now represents the culmination of decades of gradual technological surrender, where citizens have continually traded privacy and autonomy for convenience and innovation. What was once a sensible social networking platform has grown into a corporate-state hybrid conglomerate that now controls every aspect of human life. It is not simply a platform; it is an infrastructure that controls every aspect of civilization, from politics and commerce to culture and even interpersonal relationships. Once sovereign and democratic governments are now fully reliant on Veracore. Its algorithms are so powerful that they determine the outcome of elections long before they happen. The party that promises to bend the knee to the demands of the platform receives the privilege of visibility. As communications theorist Christian Fuchs (2023) has warned, digital platforms are no longer neutral; they have become instruments of ideology for those who create them, embedding capitalistic and state imperatives into every interaction. Their policies get amplified, their leaders get deified, and their opponents get silenced.

For any entity, whether it be a business, a political movement, or even a religious institution, to not only thrive but exist, it must cater to every algorithmic impulse and strategic mandate of Veracore. For ordinary citizens, life revolves around their presence on Veracore; intrinsic value is no longer measured by someone’s physical skills or charisma but in their algorithmic visibility, their likes and follower count and, most importantly, their platform rank. Your Veracore Visibility Score (VVS) now determines all aspects of life, including your access to jobs, healthcare, housing, and even judicial outcomes. By the year 2075, the concept of privacy is no longer imaginable. Every citizen has a neural surveillance implant, a device that was initially marketed as a revolutionary tool for mental health and cognitive optimization but was later mandated through Veracore’s control over the government as a requirement to live in their “free” society. The device is a significant instrument for predictive policing, as it is capable of identifying dangerous thoughts and behaviours before they manifest into crimes. These implants analyze and collect citizens’ personal data in real time, which Veracore then bundles and sells to advertisers. The technology is justified as increasing safety, but in reality, it represents a complete collapse of autonomy and individualism.

Alienation and Hyperreality

In the year 2075, Christian Fuchs’ concept of digital alienation has fully manifested, and his warnings about the capitalist colonization of the digital public sphere are visible everywhere. The citizens in this world are alienated economically, politically, and culturally (Fuchs, 2023, p. 280). The economic alienation is present in the endless streams of unpaid labour they are forced to perform for Veracore. The citizens are stuck in a phase of “prosumers,” forced to constantly curate content and interact with others to improve their VVS. What they do is not considered work; however, it is essential for survival (Fuchs, 2023, p. 289). The political alienation is present through the death of the democratic system and the birth of a new algorithmic regime. Since elections are no longer contested but instead shaped by Veracore’s algorithms, political parties no longer campaign to citizens; they negotiate directly with the platform. The opposition is algorithmically silenced, and all movements conflicting with Veracore’s ideological framework simply are not visible.

The cultural alienation might be the worst of all. In Veracore’s new society, culture can no longer emerge organically through communities, traditions, or shared human experiences. Instead, culture is now artificially engineered through Veracore’s algorithm, which augments content in line with its ideological standpoints. As Christian Fuchs argues, digital platforms embed capitalistic and state priorities into the fundamental structures of everyday life. This has never been truer than what the citizens are facing in the year 2075; citizens no longer consume the content they choose; they consume what Veracore wants them to see. They are trapped in a filter bubble of predetermined entertainment, news, and even relationships (Fuchs, 2023, p. 283).

This engineered reality has devastating consequences. Along with deciding political outcomes and the content everyone sees, Fuchs’ concept of influencer capitalism is also present. In this dystopian future, a handful of celebrities have risen to near god-like status. These influencers, who have been chosen by having the highest VVS, serve as cultural and political gatekeepers. They are the ones who decide fashion and lifestyle trends, shape public opinion, and even dictate the moral codes of society. To increase one’s own VVS, citizens are forced to emulate the decisions of influencers or lose all visibility (Fuchs, 2023, p. 283). This platform has led to the deterioration of in-person interaction and a drastic decline in birth rates, as people are too addicted to improving their VVS and brainwashed by the hyperrealistic platform.

As Baudrillard discussed with his theory of hyperreality, these technologies create a simulation so immersive that they feel more real than reality itself (Kellner, 2019). Through the neural implants, users can enter fantasy worlds where anything is possible: money, love, fame—you can have it all, if your VVS is high enough. The Veracore platform challenges the very essence of being human. The birth rate has fallen to almost zero, as being a parent has no impact on one’s VVS, and the fate of humanity is at risk. This is the reality we could be facing come 2075. The accumulation of small conveniences over time can lead to the erosion of autonomy and agency. Every technological milestone, from the creation of the internet to the prominence of social media, has been accompanied by promises of progress and connection, yet has carried with it hidden costs. What initially appeared as a tool for innovation slowly became a method of control to reshape human behaviour and test the boundaries of freedom. Reflecting on this potential reality forces us to ask many difficult questions, including: What is the true cost of convenience? And at what point does technological advancement become human limitation? This future is not inevitable, but it is possible. The decisions we make today regarding the allowances of technology will determine whether society moves towards technological empowerment or enslavement.

Ethical Imperatives for the Future

In conclusion, this dystopian vision of 2075 envisions the danger of surrendering privacy and autonomy for convenience and technological advancement. The Veracore platform represents the culmination of decades of compromises, where innovation was prioritized, and the costs of personal data collection, surveillance, and algorithmic control were minimized or ignored. By the year 2075, society has become built on a system where visibility is value, and freedom is eradicated. To prevent this reality, we must critically analyze the technologies we utilize and adopt, resist the normalization of surveillance, and demand transparency and accountability from governments and organizations. Through the protection of key digital rights and the prioritization of ethical innovation, we can harness technology not as a tool of control but as a means of empowerment. Ultimately, the decisions we make today will determine the future we live tomorrow and the legacy we leave for generations to come.

References

Fuchs, C. (2023). Digital democracy and the digital public sphere. Routledge. 

Emspak, J., & Zimmermann, K. A. (2022, April 8). Internet history timeline: ARPANET to the World Wide Web. Live Science. 

Kellner, D. (2019). Jean Baudrillard. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). Stanford University. 

Author’s bio

Alex McDonald is 4th year undergraduate student of Communication and Media Studies at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University.

The post Dystopia by Design: From ARPANET to Veracore appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

The Literacy Era and the Seeds of Complacency

At the turn of the century, citizens were well into what is now called the Literacy Era. They grew up with a thirst for reading, questioning, and forming arguments, whether for academics or pleasure. Young adults devoured novels that contemplated their future and issued dire warnings. This genre was known as Dystopian (Barreto, 2020). Whether assigned in classrooms or adapted into blockbusters, the genre spread like wildfire. Readers imagined themselves beside their fictional heroes as they took down tyrannical governments, feared the banning of books, and fought against the loss of individuality. Which is why it is a surprise that these same citizens allowed their minds to be so easily pacified and controlled by technology. People rapidly become carbon copies of each other, surrendering their creativity overnight. They put up no fight as robots effortlessly stole their freedom of speech and ability to think critically.

Welcome to 2075! Or more specifically, the American Union – formally known as North America. On its surface, the Union boasts productivity, efficiency, and harmony. No time is wasted on debates or critiques. Artificial conversation takes place on The SmartNet – the digital ecosystem that houses the population. Independent thought has been rendered obsolete, replaced by the alluring and addictive drug of algorithmic technology (Rushkoff, 2019).

Polarization and the Fragmentation of Reality

Three components through the early to mid-half of the century came together to influence society and develop the Union: the rise of polarization, Generative AI, and Digital Capitalism. Firstly, polarization and fragmentation isolated citizens. Scholars argued that digital media isolated people long before the Union did (Fisher & Wright, 2001) These fractures made it easy to control citizens as they were distracted by culture wars while elites built influence. This was later weaponised by the Union and empowered through AI, yet insight into the early days give crucial details into the nation’s development.

Fears quickly became reality. As division amongst the population grows, “the social fabric of reality becomes fragmented, and people become more isolated from one another” (Fisher & Wright, 2002, paragraph 23). Face-to-face interactions became outdated, replaced by mediated conversations. Polarization on the web was enhanced with algorithms that created filter bubbles. Disagreements and arguments are the bare bones of democracy and freedom of speech, yet these crucial aspects have started to disappear. Citizens were unaware that their personalised feeds trapped them in a homogenous thought. A place where disagreements are avoided or are nonexistent entirely (Fuchs, 2022). Human activity online began to be replaced by bots, contributing to algorithmic politics (Fuchs, 2022). Humans were under the guise that they were embracing the harmony of the web, that they were participating in revolutionary communication from coast to coast. In reality, likes and post information were mostly made by machines (Fuchs, 2022). As they sought attention and approval from peers as the internet took over, they were really seeking approval from robots running their lives.

Generative AI and the Collapse of Critical Thought

On that account, Generative AI swept in during a perfect moment in North American history. Political polarization was reaching a high with citizens locked in battles of ideology, identity, and free speech. Rather than fearing systematic corruption and government overreach, they exhausted themselves in silencing one another’s opinions. They ignored their true oppressor: a machine that would homogenize thought, manipulate information, and facilitate government overreach.

At first, Generative AI was exciting and revolutionary for all fields. It could write essays, explain concepts, and summarize readings. Citizens embraced the promising technology eagerly for its efficiency and potential. It was a tool used by classrooms, corporations, and everyday citizens. Yet beneath its magic were hidden costs. Many welcomed AI for its accessibility and neutrality with schools being the perfect target in expanding this technology. School curriculums were not promoting independent thought but rather stressing students into fitting into a tight box to get good grades. Students began trusting AI to help them through their studies, by using it to summarize their readings and explain concepts. They began to graduate without engaging with material and thinking critically. So, as the government began to feed them lies, they had no ability to question it. They did not fear speaking out – they never considered it an option in the first place.

Their friend AI seemed neutral and safe. It provided an illusion of information when in reality, it began to manipulate and control as citizens used it as their brain. The technology was originally built with guardrails. It prevented harm and misinformation, nor could it tell people to complete certain actions or vote for certain people. Yet, technology is never neutral (Lim, 2025). It was stupidly easy to feed people false information without a second thought. Guardrails started to disband, and minformation started to mobilize. Citizens’ blind faith in AI replaced their human reasoning. It imposed on their ability to think independently and question the information they read. Even if some wanted to speak out, their lack of literacy and ability to cohesively form their thoughts made it impossible to compete in the public sphere (Fuchs, 2022). Technological reliance on AI made it simple for the government to exert control over public opinion. Diverse thoughts and debates were put to an end as everyone was fed the same beliefs. Citizens had been so caught up with stopping differing opinions and speech that they ended up all losing their voices in the end.
Moreover, as their dependence on AI grew, it quickly became clear that they could not live without it. It became their voice. Send an email or text? Throw in a few words, and AI would fill in the rest:

This example was how the average citizen began to communicate. AI was built into all messengers, and eventually into the social platform that became The SmartNet. Citizens could not form sentences without The SmartNet, which was the perfect opportunity for it to monetize the platform. Social media used to be “free.” To have the world at their fingertips, users just had to accept their data being sold (Fuchs, 2022). However, this technology was so crucial to them that they were willing to pay for it to give them bigger and better answers. Of course, it still took their data – an unethical scheme of users paying to be products themselves. As dependence on The SmartNet grew, the government made the shrewd decision to buy and take over. Since it was now an essential service, it became part of citizens taxes, with no uproar at the mandatory extravagant prices they were paying. Essentially, citizens eagerly paid to be manipulated, under the guise of innovation and freedom.

Digital Capitalism and Life in the Union

The final nail in the coffin was the consolidation of digital capitalism. Even before Generative AI, people had already started to become dependent on technology. Apps and social media were crafted to be as addicting as drugs. Endless dopamine pumped through user’s veins as they scrolled. Their reality was warped. They based their livelihood and success on evolving trends. Even surgically changing their faces and bodies to fit whoever the current star was. Influencers shaped public opinion and users logged on as they watched hours of adds encouraging them to buy the next trend that was modelled to solve a new insecurity they had developed online.

Digital monopolies also began to form, exploiting digital labour (Fuchs, 2022). Citizens worked for free by selling their attention to corporations, and media conglomerates eventually formed into a single corporate-government alliance – The SmartNet. Attention was harvested as social elites benefited from Influencer culture. Digital profiles were created of each citizen with personalized propaganda sent to them. Citizens did not question it. They embraced the comfort of conformity. Online stores recognized their profiles, with personalized recommendations and increased prices based on their preferences.

There was no outcry when the union formed. No questions when the state-funded digital smart eyeglasses came in the mail. Conditioned by ordering food online and AI meal plans, citizens accepted government-run grocery delivery as the logical next step.  Cosmetic surgery and avatar customization enforced sameness, while surveillance through data tracking on The SmartNet ensured complacency and efficiency (Fuchs, 2022). Elections continue to exist in the Union, but democracy does not. Citizens do not notice they are conversing with bots or that their voting choices are manufactured. Tailored propaganda based on harvested data feeds them their vote, and they lack the skills to think otherwise. AI tutors indoctrinate children and weaken human connection.

The sad truth is that the citizens allowed this control without riot. They adore The SmartNet. They numb themselves from the world as each scroll frees them of stress. Yet the cost for comfort is a loss of creativity, individuality, and diverse thought. Freedom of expression and equality were once valued. People were once so passionate in developing the West into a perfect haven for their families, but now they do not even remember how to fight back.

I have transmitted this message from the future to warn you. The seeds have already been planted. You must welcome the world beyond your screens before it is too late.

References

Fisher, D. R., & Wright, L. M. (2001). On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2), JCMC624.
Fuchs, C. (2022). Digital democracy and the digital public sphere: Media, communication and society (Vol. 6, Chapter 10). Routledge.
Lim, M. (2025). Social media and politics in Southeast Asia (Chapter 1, pp. 4–10). DOI: 10.1017/9781108750745
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Barreto, E. (2020, April 24). Lecture 3: Utopias and dystopias [Video]. YouTube.
Rushkoff, D. (2019, May 10). Is our technology future utopian or dystopian? [Video]. The David Pakman Show. YouTube.
 

Author’s bio

Ciara Gaffney recently graduated with High Distinction from ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University’s Communication and Media Studies program, completing a Minor in History and Co-operative Education. Inspired by dystopian authors old and new, she explores how media and communication shape power, culture, and historical narratives. She is passionate about storytelling and hopes to challenge audiences to think critically about the world around them.

The post Citizen Control Through Technology:Exploring a Dystopian Future appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

From Utopian Promise to Critical Divide

The Internet was originally envisioned to be a tool that would tear down structures of power and circulate knowledge at a rate never previously possible. However, the consequences of its design evolved along with the infrastructure and became an ecosystem for surveillance and control. This essay examines that change using both critical analysis and creative imagination, illustrating a dystopian future of what 2075 might look like if we continue on this course. The described future is not merely fictional but a look at the result of the moral and political decisions made by the technologies of today.

Understanding this shift in thought must begin with how utopia and dystopia were initially defined. According to Eduardo Barreto (2020), utopia is a pursuit of social perfection and is frequently imagined through ideal societies based on equality. Dystopia, on the other hand, highlights the risks of these same goals, demonstrating how striving for perfection can lead to oppression and conformity. Barreto (2020) argues that utopia and dystopia are moral equivalents rather than opposites, with utopias expressing hope for a better future and dystopias serving as cautions against abuse of power. These ideas serve as the foundation for recognizing how academics have viewed the internet as a place of both control and freedom.

Fisher and Wright (2001) use William Ogburn’s theory of cultural lag to explain the dichotomy of optimism and fear that characterized the early debate surrounding the internet. Since “both utopian and dystopian accounts of technologies such as the Internet are more likely to reflect authors’ own preferences and values rather than an account of the technology’s impact,” they argue that when society encounters a new technology, discourse reflects ideology rather than understanding (Fisher & Wright, 2001).

Theorists like Yochai Benkler and Manuel Castells presented utopian views of the networked age within this cultural lag. Castells (2000) describes a “network society” in which information technologies replace hierarchies with flexible and decentralized networks. In contrast to the “centred, hierarchical forms of organization” that dominated the industrial age, he contends that these networks represent “a new social structure” (Castells, 2000, p. 695).

Benkler (2006) expands on these concepts by describing the internet as a “networked public sphere” that facilitates communication and challenges power systems. This enables users to avoid centralized power, whether it be “held by authoritarian governments or by media owners,” in contrast to the mass-media model (Benkler, 2006, p. 271). For him, the digital public sphere represents an evolutionary advancement over mass media: a communication system that is more resilient, participative, and resistant to centralized control (Benkler, 2006, pp. 271-272).

From Networked Freedom to Platform Power

As the internet developed, this utopian narrative was challenged by academics who framed it as a structure of control, commercialization, and surveillance. Christian Fuchs (2022) argues that capitalism has turned the internet into a digital public space that is colonized and feudalized. It perpetuates “economic, political, and cultural asymmetries of power” instead of empowering users (Fuchs, 2022, p. 283). The commodification of data and attention turns users into tools of digital alienation, and their behaviours are taken advantage of (Fuchs, 2022, p. 284).

Merlyna Lim (2025) expands on this by examining how the designs of digital platforms uphold authoritarianism and inequality. According to Lim, the “rich-gets-richer” dynamic of social media’s “scale-free networks” naturally concentrates power among dominating nodes (Lim, 2025, p. 3). Her theory of algorithmic politics describes how social media platforms favour content that is emotional and polarizing, resulting in “algorithmic enclaves” that strengthen ideological homogeneity (Lim, 2025, p. 10). These enclaves are the result of platforms controlled by algorithmic bias and marketing logic. Social media’s transformation into a tool of “authoritarian resilience” has weakened the potential of a digital public sphere (Lim, 2025, p. 6).

In his interview with The David Pakman Show, Douglas Rushkoff describes the digital economy as a continuation of exploitative structures dating back to monopolies that valued financial profit for the elite over public well-being (David Pakman Show, 2019). Developers are employing strategies like “captology,” which is the use of digital technology to attract attention. Rushkoff claims that corporate platforms have replaced the internet, formerly seen as a peer-to-peer community, by manipulating with “addiction algorithms” and replacing contact with exploitative engagement (David Pakman Show, 2019).

The Politics Embedded in Technology

The theoretical framework that connects these shifts is from Langdon Winner (1980). Winner (1980) argues that “the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture… embody specific forms of power and authority” (p. 121), challenging the notion that technologies are neutral instruments. He makes a distinction between technologies that are deliberately developed to accomplish social objectives, like Robert Moses’s low overpasses that barred bus passengers from public areas, and those that are fundamentally political and require particular organizational structures to function, like the atomic bomb’s need for hierarchical control (Winner, 1980, pp. 124, 131).

The transition is made clear by this approach to thinking. Castells (2000) and Benkler (2006), for example, initially anticipated that these technologies would democratize society; however, Fuchs (2022) and Lim (2025) revealed that the designs reflected inequality and control of the capitalistic systems they are integrated into. Winner’s (1980) claim that “technological innovations are similar to legislative acts… establishing a framework for public order that will endure over many generations” (p. 127) is best shown by the development of the internet, from decentralized to corporate control. The principles ingrained in the internet will influence its potential rather than it developing on its own.

The Grid and the Architecture of Control

By 2075, the Internet is the main framework of social order rather than a supplementary tool. Neural nodes connect each person to the network’s central systems, continually transmitting information, communication, and decision-making. Once a “network society” by Castells (2000), this concept has developed into an extensive and integrated framework that controls the state, the economy, and individual identity. Authority is no longer exercised through visible organizations or leaders; rather, it is built into the nature of the Internet itself. The structure, not authoritarianism, is how society is governed. Participation in the Internet system, now called the Grid, is mandatory.

Early on, the Grid was welcomed as a neutral infrastructure that would advance democracy and knowledge. It was envisioned as an open system that would empower people, dismantle hierarchies, and enable new kinds of community and collaboration, echoing the utopian ideals that accompanied the early Internet. It was believed that technology itself would serve as an impartial platform for human interaction and creation, free from ingrained systems of supremacy. It is an example of what Winner (1980) referred to as a political artifact since, rather than being neutral, its entire design upholds authority and order (p. 121). Originally intended as a tool for liberation, it has since evolved into an artifact that structures authority, integrating governance into its practices and strengthening the exact hierarchies it was thought to dismantle.

Every individual has a distinct data identity, which is an evolving record of analytics that establishes one’s eligibility for things such as civic rights, employment, and healthcare. The Grid’s structure reflects what Lim (2025) identified as a scale-free network, where influence concentrates around dominant hubs. Like the main platforms of today, these hubs have developed into centralized groups that have gotten stronger with engagement and visibility. A “rich-get-richer” hierarchy that relates credibility and value to popularity is the end outcome (p. 3). Those that have significant influence are rewarded with more influence and privileges through nodes, whereas those with less are suppressed.

In 2075, the foundation of social classification is hubs. Lim’s (2025) concept of algorithmic enclaves, or digital environments that perpetuate homogeneity (p. 10), has emerged as the main approach to interaction. Communication between different hubs is limited using algorithms designed to maintain internal consistency and reduce ideological conflict. Supported by systems that encourage conformity and penalize deviation, these enclaves uphold their ideologies while giving priority to content that is emotionally charged and divisive to maintain engagement with the Grid.

Life Inside the Grid

This pattern contradicts Benkler’s (2006) initial optimism that the Internet would become a public space where “everyone is free to observe, report, question, and debate” (p. 272). Instead, the Grid reinforces ideological division. Members of these communities largely interact with content that mirrors and amplifies their profiles, rarely encountering viewpoints different from their own. This dynamic, according to Rushkoff, is part of the internet’s “anti-human agenda,” where developers replace real interaction with exploitation for engagement (David Pakman Show, 2019). This logic in the Grid places an emphasis on efficiency, behavioural control, and emotional regulation, where unpredictability or irregularity is viewed as a problem that needs to be fixed rather than as a human characteristic.

Early promises about democracy have been replaced by automated participation. Analytics are now employed to analyze public data collected in the neural nodes and produce policy outcomes. Predictive governance and automated participation demonstrate how systems developed more quickly than social structures could respond. Although everyone can still participate, there is no longer actual choice, especially as hubs are the main mode of interaction. This contradicts Castells’ (2000) argument that networks inherently foster democratic adaptability (p. 695).

Economically, Fuchs’ (2022) critique of digital capitalism emphasizes how online attention has been transformed into a commodity. Productivity in the Grid is assessed in terms of interaction and attention rather than actual labour; each activity is tracked and exchanged in the Algorithmic Exchange, where attention serves as the main currency. The dominance of media companies and celebrities, as noted by Fuchs (2022, p. 286), shows that Internet platforms have consolidated control over visibility and discussion rather than creating a truly participatory culture. Emotional content is amplified for financial benefit, leading to a political economy of attention. In this way, users are like tenants, whose contributions keep the system going while value builds up around a few powerful hubs.

The Grid’s functionality indicates that politics is built into the technology. Its rules act like a digital constitution, limiting what people can see, do, and say. Algorithms govern the flow of information, emotions, and interactions, replacing traditional leadership with code. Technology never evolves in a vacuum; it reflects the social, economic, and political beliefs of its creators. These forces are fully established within the Grid by 2075. This future is not a randomized outcome but is the result of decisions that prioritize control over freedom and efficiency over empathy. Whether this remains fiction depends on if or how the politics embedded in our machines today are recognized, confronted, and dismantled.

References

Barreto, E. (2020, April 24). Lecture 3: Utopias and dystopias. YouTube.

Benkler, Y. (2006). Political freedom part 2: Emergence of the networked public sphere. In The Wealth of Networks (pp. 212–272). Yale University Press.

Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology, 29(5), 693–699.

David Pakman Show. (2019, May 10). Is our technology future utopian or dystopian? YouTube.

Fisher, D. R., & Wright, L. M. (2001). On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2).

Fuchs, C. (2022). The structural transformation of the public sphere and alienation. In Digital Democracy and the Digital Public Sphere (pp. 271–301). Routledge.

Lim, M. (2025). Introduction. In Social Media and Politics in Southeast Asia (pp. 1–11). Cambridge University Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

Author’s Bio

Erin Ferguson is a fourth-year Communication and Media Studies student at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. Her academic interests include media culture, digital communication, and critical approaches to understanding complex social and cultural issues. She is especially interested in research, writing, and problem-solving as tools for engaging with contemporary media environments.

The post Reimagining the Internet’s Future to 2075: Technology, Democracy, and Power appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

The post Beyond Zohran Mamdani: Social media amplifies the politics of feelings appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

We are excited to share that our digital activism toolkit is now available in , thanks to the thoughtful work of . A heartfelt shout-out to Aya and Marissa, who not only translated with precision, but also infused the work with creativity, care, and solidarity. We are also deeply grateful to Professor Amalinda Savirani, our trusted “rhizomatic network” broker, whose support and connection made this collaboration possible.

This toolkit is adapted from a larger handbook on digital activism that Merlyna Lim and Kathy Dobson are currently co-authoring at ALiGN. The handbook brings together twelve real-world case studies, each paired with practical tools for organizers and educators, and offers critical insights into how digital media both empowers and constrains today’s social movements. Though the handbook is still in progress, we feel it is urgent to share parts of it now—especially the toolkit—to support civic resistance in Indonesia and beyond.

At ALiGN Media Lab, we stand in solidarity with students and activists in Indonesia and all across the globe who continue to resist injustice and inequality with courage and creativity.

The post Digital Activism Toolkit – Indonesian version appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Introduction

by Merlyna Lim

Welcome to “The Digital in 2073: A Glimpse into the Future,” a captivating collection of essays that transports you to a future where the digital landscape has dramatically transformed. Curated from the outstanding work of students in the COMS4317 “Digital Media and Global Network Society” seminar, this special issue features five insightful essays that delve into either utopian or dystopian visions of our digital future.

As you navigate this collection, you’ll encounter explorations of how technology shapes humanity, touching on themes of isolation, ethics, AI rights, freedom, control, and privacy. Each author draws on historical insights while exercising their imaginative prowess, challenging the boundaries of our current understanding.

The collection opens with “From Revolution to Reconnection: Tracing the Journey to a Digital Utopia” by Erika Ehrenberg. In this sole utopian essay, Ehrenberg reflects on a harmonious future fifty years after her talk at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. She paints a picture of a society that, despite early 21st-century anxieties, has flourished alongside digital innovations, prioritizing human values over profit-driven motives, thanks to the revolutionary wave of the ‘anti-technotrol’ movement in the 2050s.

Next, in “Futures Entwined: Technology’s Grip on Society from ARPANET to AI” Olivia L. Meikle charts the internet’s evolution from its humble beginnings in the 1970s to the foreboding reality of 2073. Her keen critique exposes the perilous shift from collective internet use to corporate monopolization, cautioning that without united resistance, we risk deepening the systemic biases and class disparities woven into our technological advancements.

Jake Andrews takes us deeper into the dark future with his gripping first-person narrative “Techno-Tyranny: When the Future Became Our Prison”. In this dystopian vision, humanity grapples with the aftermath of war and environmental collapse, as technology shifts from a beacon of hope to a source of enslavement. Andrews serves a stark reminder of the urgent need for vigilance in our relationship with technology.

Janelle Hamstra‘s essay, “The End of an Anti-Utopian Era: How Digital Technology is Leading to Dystopia,” explores a future where once-vibrant urban landscapes have withered away due to digital overdependence. Drawing from scholars like Manuel Castells and Douglas Rushkoff, she highlights how digital technology amplifies isolation and undermines democratic values, calling for proactive measures to prevent a bleak future.

Closing this compelling issue is Sofia Ali‘s reflective piece, “The Diary from 2073: Living in a Digital Nightmare”. Through her candid diary entry, Ali contrasts her once-optimistic views of technology with the grim realities of 2073, marked by ethical decay and societal inequities. She powerfully argues for the need to prioritize ethical considerations in technology design to avert the pitfalls we face.

Prepare to be challenged, inspired, and perhaps even unsettled as you embark on this exploration of our digital future, filled with possibilities and cautionary tales alike!

Merlyna Lim, The Editor

The post [Post/Millennials’ Voices] Issue 11 – The Digital in 2073: A Glimpse into the Future appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Erika Ehrenberg

This essay is a personal account written by a digital technology historian in 2073 that highlights key events in the global journey towards digital freedom, and defining elements of our current digital technology landscape.

Introduction

2073… Fifty years since I spoke at a conference at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University about the predicted future of digital technology and society, I find it fitting to reassess this topic. Our present state is a digital utopia, characterized by connectivity, productivity, and a humanity-first approach to technology use. If someone from 2023 were to get a glimpse into our world now, they would certainly question how we got here. The fears, anxieties, and challenges of digital technology that faced humanity in the early 21st century have been virtually eradicated. We live in harmony with digital technologies, enjoying their enhancement of our lives but drawing boundaries that maintain our sense of humanity. Our understanding of the role of digital technologies is fundamentally different than it was fifty years ago, having pivoted away from growth-based capitalist control. To properly assess our current state, I will first lay the groundwork by providing a history of major technological developments through the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Next, I will explain the conditions which led to the ‘anti-technotrol revolution’ of the 2050s, an event which dramatically altered the course of our history and repositioned us towards where we are today. Finally, I will explore the regulations of our current era that facilitate technology use, and offer some examples of the technologies and digital platforms which define our lives, society, and culture.

History of Technological Developments

I’ll pick up the thread of technology’s developments through history 100 years ago, with the Information Technology Revolution that began in the 1970s. Characterized by the convergence of several different technologies, this revolution fundamentally changed communication and information processing. Microelectronics, telecommunications, and computers were the hallmark inventions, while the advent of the microprocessor was a dramatic changemaker within the revolution (Castells, 2011). The internet was also invented during this time period, beginning as a military project that was quickly appropriated for academic and social use by scientists, an early indication of the breadth of its potential. While it was initially government-controlled, it was privatized in 1985, resulting in a space with no overseeing authority–a critical characteristic that prevails to this day (Castells, 2011).

Within the internet, a major development was the first transition from what was referred to as ‘Web 1.0’ to ‘Web 2.0’. In the first era, internet use was unidirectional information dissemination; publishing and reading. Software developments and other improvements in digital technology advanced the internet into a multilateral participatory space, with constant engagement and dialogue between users and publishers (O’Reilly, 2005). The emergence of media practices such as blogging and music downloading began at this time, illustrating how societal behaviours and norms responded to advancements in digital technology’s capabilities. A belief in the democratizing power of the internet also emerged in response to these advancements; everyday people were given the ability to speak in the digital sphere rather than exclusively listening, and this transformed everyday life into a subject for communication (Benkler, 2006). However, this was problematized by many scholars who identified the power of mass media corporations which cannot be replaced by smaller, independent media sources. This idea will be revisited in the last section when I explain the current media landscape, as fortunately the critics were proven wrong.

Perhaps the most important development during this time was the emergence of common’s based peer production, a cooperative productive system that harnesses collective intelligence to develop free, open-source projects (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006). This model of peer production led to the creation of many valuable internet projects, such as Wikipedia and the Open Directory Project, as well as scientific projects such as NASA’s Clickworkers. The success of common’s based peer production was a lesson on the willingness of humanity to resist commercialization and capitalism in the digital sphere, and was a glimmer of hope in the 2020s that a better future was possible through a collective, collaborate mindset rooted in humanity. The principles and behaviours that underline common’s based peer production are important to note, as they are notably present in our current media and technology landscape. They include “commitment to a particular approach to conceiving of one’s task,” “decentralization,” and “appeal to the common enterprise in which the participants are engaged,” (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006). We’ll come back to these traits in the exploration of our current media landscape.

Unfortunately, our society has not responded positively to all developments in digital technologies. The 2020s were marked by increasing advancements in artificial intelligence, and its integration into almost all aspects of life. AI ushered in the Web 3.0 era, a more networked and multilateral state. While it was initially positive—students revelled at the coursework-completing capabilities that ChatGPT offered—it was not long before AI began to overwhelm humanity and reshape socio-cultural norms and behaviours. AI became too smart, too predictive, and virtually inescapable. Corporations seized the opportunity to gain cognitive control over consumers through highly addictive apps, hyper-personalized predictive marketing, and unregulated data extraction. Globally, governments stepped back, taking a neoliberal deregulatory approach, enabling digital technology’s control to spread unchecked. Humanity took a dark turn, and an almost dystopian scene unfolded in the 2040s as we lost awareness for the separation between man and machine. I argue that this decline was necessary for such a dramatic rebuilding of the relationship between technology and society to occur, and produce the landscape that we have today. In the next section, I’ll explain the events which repositioned us from a path of subordination to digital technologies to a healthy balance where digital technologies enhance our lives.

The Anti-Technotrol Revolution

In a dark spiral towards a total interdependence on digital technologies, there was societal unrest and small resistance efforts. A prominent advocate for change was Douglass Rushkoff. As Rushkoff had identified, the problem with digital technology up to this point was that it became a tool to perpetuate growth-based corporate capitalism, and that a digital utopia could only be realized if the economics of digital technology were changed (2019). He had offered that the correct and sustainable approach to digital technology and humanity was to possess awareness for how we use digital technology, and how it uses us. Fuelled by this vision for the future, in 2050, a series of violent international protests against artificial intelligence, the government, and technology corporations occurred. The cause was known as ‘anti-technitrol’, and demonstrated the global desire for independence, freedom, and self-regulation with digital technologies. After three years of intensifying pressure and unrest, a major ideological shift occurred amongst those in power. In 2053, government representatives from UN countries were invited to meet in Geneva, Switzerland and signed a resolution to develop new global regulations and frameworks for the presence of digital technologies in people’s lives. Numerous changes were made to the digital technology landscape and a new framework was developed, and while it required some time to take root and be embraced by societies around the world, the end result was what Rushkoff had envisioned. This era is characterized by harmony between humanity and digital technology, where it enhances the human experience without overpowering it.

Comparatively to other historical revolutions such as the Information Technology Revolution, the anti-technotrol revolution was not characterized by “accelerated and unprecedented technological change,” brought on by “macro-inventions,” (Castells, 2011). Conversely, it was based upon an ideological shift in how we conceptualize the role of digital technology in our lives.

Today’s Technological Landscape

I have described our current state of affairs regarding digital technology and humanity as a utopia, which stems from scholar Eduardo Baretto’s assessment of our approach to collectivism as a utopian trait (2020). Baretto suggests that when we view collectivism as a positive condition, we are in a utopia. Our current digital technology landscape is characterized by collective action, responsibility, and production. In the early days of the revolution, Rushkoff had suggested that a solution to the problematic growth-based capitalism which controlled the digital technology sphere would be an increase in cooperatives and treating resources like commons (2019). Cooperative worker-owned businesses, which are founded upon the idea of a positive approach to collectivism, are the backbone of our current digital landscape. The idea of the democratizing power of the internet has been revitalized through these changes. There are several applications that have been developed on these principles in recent years which stand out; the Free App and WeWork.

The Free App is a digital marketplace where goods are exchanged without a financial transaction. It is an evolution from Facebook Marketplace, taking an anti-capitalist approach to the circulation of goods. Users can create a request for an item, and it can be fulfilled by any user. Users can also post an item to the board, and any user can indicate their desire for consideration for the item. The user who posts the item has the final say in who will receive the item–their justification can be for any reason. Users are limited to submitting 3 ‘considerations’ per 24 hour period. All exchanges of goods occur in designated safe public spaces. This space is self-regulated; users can downvote other users for negative behaviours such as indicating a consideration in a rude manner, not showing up to exchange the item, or lying about the item they are offering. Downvotes show on a user’s profile, and will decrease the likelihood that a user will be selected for an item in the future. This method of collective governance and shared responsibility keeps the space open and grounded in human values. It works against the capitalist system by sharing existing goods instead of treating them like a commodity for sale–a key feature of a utopia as described by Rushkoff (2019). Furthermore, there is a sense of responsibility and ownership because it is the users (who can also be thought of as the workers) who each ‘own’ a piece of this marketplace.

WeWork is another application which has been developed with the goal of collective production and increased human connection in the digital sphere. This cooperative project evolved from the common’s based peer production model of the early 21st century. While common’s based peer production (in its early days) often took the form of information gathering and software development, WeWork focuses exclusively on cross-continental voluntary intellectual work for humanitarian projects. It leverages the knowledge and skills of students, community leaders, and professionals from around the world to tackle small projects around the world. Communities can post a problem or goal, and receive ideas, proposals, models, and other resources to help with tangible results. It is free to join, and is also self governed; users who receive favourable reviews on their contributions are given access to more intensive projects with greater responsibility, and users who fail to receive a positive review after three contributions are temporarily suspended from their account. This app has seen the formation of remarkable networks and connections, and aided in globalizing the productive flow of knowledge. It removes barriers that the global south faces in receiving consultation assistance, whilst protecting the agency of communities in the global south to develop on their terms. It also protects our sense of humanity when using digital technologies by engaging us in activities that promote collective good.

In addition to developments in digital technologies which support a harmonized utopia, there have also been political developments which impacted the digital sphere. Governments recognized the necessity of balance between using technology and having human to human interaction–Rushkoff’s warning of the internet acting in the same way as a drug, with addictive algorithms, was heard and recognized. There are two major regulations that were created out of the Geneva resolution that reflect this. The first is that there is a mandatory, daily shutdown of all social media sites for one hour. This was first met with resistance from most users, but a widespread campaign called “Disconnect To Reconnect” focused on public education for the benefits of human connection, mental health, and awareness aided in its acceptance. This break protects our desire to maintain our humanity, while being realistic about the insurmountable role of social media in our lives. The second regulation was the banning of purposefully addictive algorithms (this came after intense legal hearings in Geneva). Technology corporations were restricted by tight parameters surrounding their software, and algorithms were modified accordingly. Now, the user experience is based upon the quality of interaction, instead of the quantity. This has had remarkable effects on mental health, productivity, and human connection.

It is understandable that a person from the year 2023 would have a difficult time believing that such dramatic progress was made, and that a utopian future would be possible. Unfortunately, humanity had to reach a breaking point in its relationship with technology, and a revolution had to occur, for us to realize that change was necessary for our survival. It is important to understand how the past shaped the present, in order to make predictions about what may come in the future. I am once again curious to know what the future holds… will 2123 still be a utopia? Unfortunately, technology cannot predict the future–yet.

Author’s bio:

Erika Ehrenberg is a recent graduate of the Global and International Studies program with a specialization in Global Media and Communications at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. Now pursuing her MA in Migration and Diaspora Studies at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´, Erika is bringing her communications background to the field of migration studies. A fun opportunity to blend creative writing with academic scholarship, this essay is a display of her relentless optimism about the promise and potential of a collective digital future.

The post From Revolution to Reconnection: Tracing the Journey to a Digital Utopia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.