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 �Ӱ�ԭ�� 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 �Ӱ�ԭ�� 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 �Ӱ�ԭ�� University. Now pursuing her MA in Migration and Diaspora Studies at �Ӱ�ԭ��, 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.

by Sofia Ali

Dear Diary,

The year is 2073. I came across a discussion post I wrote in a class I took in the fourth year of my undergraduate degree. The post was about what I believed the digital world would look like fifty years in the future. I thought we would have flying cars or talking fridges. I was wrong. This has me reminiscent of how different the digital landscape was back in 2023. We now live in what I would call a digital nightmare. The digital landscape in the year 2073 has caused societal downfall. Unchecked technological advancement and society’s reliance on technology have led to a world controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), filled with human isolation and the absence of ethics. Looking at the bias present in AI, the connection between our digital and social world, the relationship between technology and humanity, and how it leads us to human isolation, it is clear how we have entered societal downfall. I wish I could go back and tell my past self what I know now. I wrote this diary entry so that I can look back at it in the future and see what has changed.

I remember back in 2023, AI was on the rise. It was the next big thing. Who could have thought how destructive it could be? We should have known. Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s work was a wake-up call to society. It was one example of the discrimination present within algorithms and AI that affected all spheres of the public realm (Kantayya, 2020). While working on AI facial recognition technologies, Dr.Buolamwini found that these algorithms often could not detect darker-skinned individuals or women accurately (Kantayya, 2020). This was a milestone discovery. It uncovered more about society than just the mere fact that AI and algorithms could be discriminatory. This discovery showed how society and technology cannot be separated (Kantayya, 2020). The social aspects of the world were integrated into the technological aspects (Kantayya, 2020). Looking back at history, the people who have had the privilege to work on these technologies have been predominantly white men (Kantayya, 2020). Therefore, technologies such as facial recognition AI cater to them (Kantayya, 2020). Langdon Winner looks at how design choices of technologies reflect political and social values and can establish power or authority (Winner, 1980, p.134). This shows how much our social sphere gets tied into the digital realm. The exclusion of darker-skinned individuals and women from this technology is just one example of Winner’s argument that design choices of technological artifacts show power and authority. You can see who has power in society to see who is included in the design of facial recognition technology. Now, looking at where we are now in 2073, the increased diversity in facial recognition technologies and AI being able to detect people of colour and women have led to increased surveillance and discrimination. These technologies are being used against minorities. We did not learn from our previous discoveries how life’s social and technological parts are tied together. Therefore, the same technology that was made inclusive to minorities is being used against them. This is just one-way unchecked technological advancement and reliance on technology have led to the societal downfall. We can see through this lack of ethics.

Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist, once said that technology has an anti-human agenda (Rushkoff, 2019). He caught on to how technological tools and platforms were being created to help corporations, not to help people’s lives (Rushkoff, 2019). It was to extract value from people in forms such as time, data, consciousness and choice-making (Rushkoff, 2019). He coined early on that the digital landscape is becoming anti-human because of the biases of corporate growth, where companies are fueled by capital (Rushkoff, 2019).

That is what has happened to the digital landscape in 2073. It is almost like he knew exactly what would happen in the future. Rushkoff was able to identify the relationship between technology and humanity. He discussed how the internet could be compared to a drug, where you have to be mindful of the way you use it (Rushkoff, 2019). The only issue is, that society did not recognize the power technology had. This unchecked technological advancement and society’s blind reliance on technology is what led to societal downfall.  As Rushkoff said back in 2019, when something is invented, venture capital is what will dictate what happens with the new technology (Rushkoff, 2019). Even back then, we could see the appearance of the digital realm as capital-based rather than human-centred (Rushkoff, 2019). It was about what made the most money, not what helped people. In the current time, 2073, the reality has become that society is more worried about how programs affect the operational system of their computer when they install it instead of how the operational system will affect their lives when they are using it (Rushkoff, 2019). The relationship between technology and humanity has become unbalanced and oversaturated. Society has become dependent on technology instead of consuming it as a healthy diet.

Even back in 2019, Rushkoff mentioned that anything in digital technology is a substitute for something one can do in real life (Rushkoff, 2019). If only we had listened back then. This shows the clear link that has always been present between humanity and technology. This over-dependence on technology has led to isolation. Dating back to 2001, Fisher and Wright discussed that “in addition to the loss of strong bonds among members of society, many critics agree that the Internet will limit connections between central and peripheral actors in society” (Fisher & Wright, 2006). It can be said that computer and networking technology produce transformations in every corner of social life (Fisher & Wright, 2006). Now, in 2073, this is our only reality. Society’s blind reliance and dependence on technology now fosters human connection and interaction.
Humans have no reason to interact as technology now serves every purpose. The more dependent we have become on technology, the more there was isolation among humans. Real-life experience and sustenance were always necessary. We knew this back then, but 2073’s digital landscape can prove that corporations do not have individuals’ best interests at heart. Even back in 2019, Rushkoff mentioned that social media is filled with algorithms from slot machines (Rushkoff, 2019). They know how to hypnotize people. Now, in 2073, they have mastered it. There is no separation between the real world and the digital world. The digital world has become our real world. Human isolation has occurred as society is fully reliant on these unchecked technologies to operate. This has led to societal downfall as the corporations behind this are not interested in what humans want and need. Power has been placed into the hands of these big companies whose only goal is to make as much money as possible. As I previously mentioned, with the bias present in AI, we can see that a lot can be revealed about society in technology. Touching on Winner’s argument that technological artifacts show power and authority, the increased reliance on digital technology has caused power to fall into the wrong hands. As mentioned before, history has shown us that people with privilege could advance certain technologies, which excluded certain groups. There will always be greater themes present in our technology as we cannot separate the social realm from the digital realm.

I wish we could go back in time and use these discoveries and lessons to avoid this digital nightmare. If we had used Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s work for more than making AI more inclusive. We could have used her work to truly tackle the issue at hand, where our social bias will permanently be embedded into technology. The inclusivity in technology we added was used against the minority groups that were being excluded. Early on, we found that the design of technology gives power. Now, in 2073, this power is in the wrong hands. It is in the hands of corporations that are driven by capital and not human needs. Through looking at the history of AI excluding minority groups and how society and technology are linked, it can be seen how AI has been advanced to continue to put marginalized communities at a disadvantage. Our social realm will always be tied to our technological realm. This stresses the importance of ethics, which you can see a lack of in 2073. The digital landscape in the year 2073 is now filled with human isolation. Technology has taken over humanity due to society’s overreliance on it. We have reached a societal downfall. This unchecked advancement and society’s reliance on technology has led to this world controlled by AI with the absence of ethics and filled with human isolation. If we had taken what we had learned throughout history, we could prevent what is happening today. If I could go back, I would read this diary entry to myself.

References

Fisher, D. R., & Wright, L. M. (2006). On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the internet. Journal of  Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2), 1

Kantayya, S. (2020). Coded bias. 7th Empire Media.

Rushkoff, D. (2019, May 10). Is Our Technology Future Utopian or Dystopian?

[Podcast; interview]. In David Pakman Show.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 121-136.

Author’s bio:

Sofia Ali recently graduated with High Distinction from �Ӱ�ԭ�� University’s Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management program, specializing in Communication Technologies and Regulation.

She continues to work in Policy and Communications in the professional world.

The post The Diary from 2073: Living in a Digital Nightmare appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Jake Andrews

Introduction – My Dystopian World

I chose to write about a dystopian future where technology has doomed society. I will write in the first person as if I was living in this future myself. Starting from a surface level, I will detail from a broad perspective what this world has become in 2073. From there, I will peel back the curtain to unveil how it got to that point and highlight the moments that defined the beginning of the end for this doomed civilization. Finally, I will discuss a hypothetical scenario that shows how these citizens might claw their way back from the brink of annihilation and reclaim their society.

The Dark Present

The year is 2073. Humanity is a shadow of what it once was. War has taken its toll. Hope and optimism have given way to tyranny and desolation. The natural world is a wasteland; climate change has accelerated, and high-tech weaponry has ravaged the landscape. All our food is artificial, and pollution has desecrated the air, land and sea globally. Those who held out through the wars eventually gave up control over our lives to the government in hopes they could fix this worsening mess. They sold us to the highest bidder. When the truth revealed itself, that those who sought to save us really meant to enslave us, we had the opportunity to fight, many chose to kneel.

We had the opportunity to stop the sobering wheel of technological progress, but we chose to blindly stumble into the fire. Now, all that remains is this bleak, miserable existence. The internet, robotics, and artificial intelligence were supposed to be our salvation. They became the hammer, and we became the nail. The mice have accepted the wheel, and on and on we go, running towards destruction. How did we get here?

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

The beginning of the end came in 2035. However, the events that led to that point came much sooner. Nobody knew it at the time, but the invention of the internet started us down the path to our own doom. The cultural lag that accompanied it meant we did not feel the real ramifications of what we had created until much further down the line. Industry responded to its introduction, governments attempted to regulate it. They largely failed – their attempts were criticized, and the lag they created caused humanity to ultimately suffer as social philosophies could not adjust. Government attempts to discuss regulation were labelled as a mix of “satanic and angelic images that have surrounded, justified, and denigrated technology without realistically assessing its actual capabilities and limitations” (Fisher & Wright, 2001). Regulation never came. Those ominous capabilities would eventually become crystal clear, and the limitations of humanity would accentuate the darker side of this new technology.

A lack of regulation in the 2000-2030 period meant the internet became the digital wild west. We were taught that, “a society that provides opportunities for virtuous behavior is one that is more conducive to virtuous individuals” (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006, p. 394). Open-source collaboration, cooperative business models where workers became owners, and free and readily available information and software suggested a digital paradise. Our trusting nature got the better of us. A few bad apples in this utopian system led to the “Copenhagen incident”.

A group of Danish students at the University of Copenhagen created an open-source software protocol to bypass government security systems. It became a haven for hackers and enemies of the Western world. One thing led to another, and the group launched missiles of the US military at strategic military installations and government buildings in retaliation to the never-ending US occupation of the Middle East and other parts of the world. This unprecedented attack led to a manhunt for those responsible; they were swiftly apprehended, and their discovery led to the shutdown of the open-source software program, prosecution of those involved, widespread paranoia and war between nations, increased scrutiny on open-sourced platforms and the internet in general, and led to the type of regulation we tried so hard to avoid when the technology was first introduced. Copenhagen became ground zero and was reduced to rubble. The US government lashed out at the entire world. Other nations fought back and were met with nuclear weapons and deprivation of vital resources. Only direct allies of America, the wealthy, and the connected remained afterward. The world was reduced to an arid wasteland, and nobody sought to fix it when the bombs stopped. We simply left the countries that lost the war to rot – the “winning side” began to think about an easier way. As the natural world and our resources dwindled, the governments of the world became ill-equipped to deal with the growing problem at hand. In 2035, we began the age of Techno-dystopia. Technology was the answer to everything – food, pollution, production, industry, entertainment, law and order. Now, most of the population are mindless, stuck in a zombie-like state, giving their all to the machine.

Humanity has become too accustomed to our addiction to technology. When the internet was first invented, “people did not equate technology to the use of a drug; they thought more about how the installation of technologies would affect their computer or device rather than how use of these technologies would affect their lives and mental state” (David Pakman Show, 2019, 5:57 – 6:53), now we have truly come full circle where we have no life without it. Technology has rendered us in a trance-like state using addictive algorithms fostered in studies of captology. Humanity did not understand the dehumanizing compromises we needed to make in order to interact with technology in a better way and compensate for it (Pakman, 2019).

AI development and robotics began to be employed on a mass scale to clean up the mess humans had made. The internet and wearable devices became a way to monitor, track, and account for the growing slave population needed to facilitate the new reality. Oppression, control, and regulation of the people by the ruling elite became the norm. We lost all sense of individuality and became a collectivist society. Our news lost all meaning; fake news proliferated, and the fabrication of real news through propaganda made discerning truth from lies almost impossible. Egalitarianism and any sense of social justice became a distant memory.

The day they locked our devices was a day I will never forget. Such a coordinated effort. Like a super villain out of a movie, these corporate overlords flipped the switch of ultimate subjugation. In an ironic sense, we should have seen it coming. Art imitates life—1984, Terminator, Ready Player One. Did we refuse to believe the possibilities out of sheer ignorance? How blind we were. Maybe we deserve what we have begotten.

Where Do We Go From Here?

How do we reverse this terrible course of events? How do we wrestle control back from the techno-empowered masters? We have to create a plan. We need to break free from the hold of technology and return to our roots: recultivate the landscape, create farmable spaces, recruit the many to combat the privileged few, and find a way to scramble the machines. At first, those in political agreement with the corporations benefited, but now, even those people see the error of their choices. Very few actually prosper in this new world, so we need to remind them of it and recruit more people to the cause. We need the machines to be unplugged for technology to once again become an enabler of prosperity, not a tool for corporate greed and mass imprisonment.

The fact that we are still here shows that it is not the end. The common people are still alive; we are just fragmented and have lost sight of the way to salvation. Rumors of a settlement for the resistance are abound; a hidden outpost exists somewhere and its whereabouts are circulating through cryptic and encoded messages passed around on pieces of paper, a scarce item these days. I was approached in a local bar by a group led by an older gentleman who whispered the words “simul autem resurgemus” into my ear and handed me a message. Hope springs eternal. I have spent the last six months deciphering its meaning. It points to a location in the European wasteland left over from the war. It speaks of a gathering. Talking about it in plain terms is impossible under the watchful eyes and ears of this surveillance state. You have to move into the shadows, out of sight, out of range of their devices in order to see, hear and speak in the language of freedom. I will find my way there, make meaning of it all, rediscover my purpose, and make a difference once again. For me, there is no other option, for this life is truly no life at all.

Conclusion – What Does it All Mean?

“Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral. It is indeed a force, probably more than ever under the current technological paradigm, that penetrates the core of life and mind. But its actual deployment in the realm of conscious social action, and the complex matrix of interaction between the technological forces unleashed by our species, and the species itself, are matters of inquiry rather than of fate” (Castells, 2011, p. 76). The future is in our hands.

I have painted a picture of a dystopian world. In order to prevent our future from becoming like this dystopia, we should pay special attention to our relationship with technology and those who develop the hardware, software, platforms and applications we use and incorporate into our daily lives. Barreto states, “The idea of utopia begins on an island and ends in the future. It goes from where to when utopia changed from a better world elsewhere, out there, to a better world in the future. Yet, as it continues into dystopian fiction those ideals are reserved, now it is not a better world in the future, but a worse one. They are both about hope: one tells you a better world is coming, the other tells you there is a terrible world in the future, but if you recognize these elements, then we can stop it now” (Barreto, 2020, 17:18-17:53). Let us hope our future generations recognize these elements if they begin to encroach into our reality if they have not already.

References

Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.

Castells, M. (2011). The Information Technology Revolution. The rise of the network society.

David Pakman Show. (2019, May 10). Is Our Technology Future Utopian or Dystopian [Video]. YouTube.

Eduardo Barreto. (2020. April 24). Lecture 3: Utopias and Dystopias [Video]. 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, Vol. 6 (2),

Author’s bio:

Jake Andrews is a recent graduate of the �Ӱ�ԭ�� Communication and Media Studies program with a passion for writing, music, travelling and board games. 

Jake is a fan of dystopian literature and entertainment. Drawing inspiration from Terminator 2, 1984, Mad Max and other famous pieces of fiction, he created this story of a world in despair, of a future that may yet come to be where the desperate few cling to hope that they can reclaim what they lost in a world ruled by technology, and militant corporate greed.

The post Techno-Tyranny: When the Future Became Our Prison appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Olivia L. Meikle

Dear Diary,

In the year 2073, I will be turning 72 years old, and when I envision the future, it is informed by the current world and history thus far. Looking back 50 years from 2023, we can see the early origins of the internet in the 1970’s. Our view of the future is also informed by past conceptions of utopian and dystopian societies through fiction (Baretto, 2020). A utopian imagined future would uphold collectivism and equity through technology, while a dystopian future would weaponize technology to threaten and diminish individual rights (Fisher & Wright, 2001). In 2073, a technological dystopia will be our reality because digital technology mirrors society and upon analyzing our historical digital evolution, we can identify how the future will likely amplify ethical issues such as wealth and class disparities, exploitation, systemic bias, surveillance and misinformation due to quickening technological advancements impacting the public sphere.

Politics, Power & Tech Convergence

Baretto (2020) states in his lecture that the concept of a dystopian future is reactionary, out of a belief that contrarily to a utopian collectivist society, authoritarian use of technology will guide humans towards the loss of individual identities and vulnerable populations will be disproportionately impacted (11:00). For this idea to emerge and inspire authors to imagine future dystopic worlds, there had to be foundations for a potential distrust in technology.

Examining the Information Technology (IT) Revolution helps us see the shifts that have marked societal shifts due to digital technologies. The IT Revolution began in the mid-1940s with the development of micro-electronics, personal computers and telecommunications, which led to the creation of the internet in 1969. The United States Department of Defence created the ARPANET during the Cold War as a decentralized communication network between the military and scientists (Castells, 2011, p. 46). It was designed to distribute responsibility and power to more parties, which meant it had great democratic potential (Lim, 2023, W2). In the 1980s, the network transitioned into the INTERNET; in the ’90s, the Internet was privatized (Castells, 2011, p. 46).

The early origins of the Internet were developed by the most highly funded department in the US, which was made up of white male scientists, mathematicians, or military officials in positions of power. When imagining the time and space of the future, we must also imagine the existing systems that would be reflected in our technology (Winner, 1980). Access to early computing had gender and racial limitations reflected in modern search engines, facial recognition and AI. If exclusionary ideals within history are rooted in early tech, how does this reflect in future iterations of the technology and impact future generations? Based on this understanding, a future dystopic society would further exploit marginalized communities and maintain power hierarchies, especially now that technology production methods are hidden from end users in the Western world.

Pervasive Computing & Capitalism

Post-privatization, the Internet was expanding rapidly due to globalization. Once the internet took off, there was no looking back as it began to set exciting new boundaries for human communication. Before the 2000s, the exchange of information on the web was regarded as far less interactive and participatory than with the emergence of Web 2.0 and platforms such as Napster for file sharing music to other personal computers (O’Reilly, 2005). This period of the internet was informed by “peer-to-peer bottom-up values” through collectivism (Pakman, 2019, 2:37). However, the increase of individual user autonomy threatened control and was questioned heavily by those in positions of power, including the US government who called for regulation of the platform (Fisher & Wright, 2001). This period also begins to follow the origins of ‘networking logic’ to understand how socially connected and dependent on technology we were becoming (Castells, 2011, p. 71).

Fisher & Wright (2001) invoked William Ogburn’s theory of the cultural lag, that “technology moves forward and the social institution lags in varying degrees,” to examine the critical responses to Napster (Fisher & Wright, 2001, para. 9). The cultural lag frame is valuable for imagining the future of technology by analyzing the present. In 2023, the speed at which technology is changing is fast enough that we can now identify potential harms as they are occurring. Baretto (2020) highlights this idea using the concept of “anti-utopia” as a response to both utopian and dystopian visions of the future (19:22). We are currently provided what is marketed to us as a “perfect” world. However, we can identify through scholarly research that there are many potentials for future discrimination toward vulnerable populations.

Furthermore, a transition from a peer-to-peer model to one dominated by “corporate growth-based capitalism” shifted the media landscape to uphold certain actors and platforms with large-scale monopolies on where social interactions occur online (Pakman, 2019, 3:27). As media consumers, we need to question who is benefitting from these interactions occurring specific platforms and what this means for these motivations, who is targeted and how this appears in real life. An example of an early peer-to-peer platform that exemplified democratic ideals was Wikipedia, which used information as a raw resource (Castells, 2011, p. 70). The platform was originally highly participatory, with volunteer collaborators contributing to articles online, which supported more public access to information (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006). Unfortunately, many early peer-to-peer platforms become eroded by capitalistic-driven platforms that track interactions and asses behaviours to create revenue from user data. This shift from democratic uses of technology to centralized and corporate ones highlights potential fears for the future and further class disparities.

Social Media Monopolies & Misinformation

In the year 2073, the late 2000s and early 2010s would be a milestone that marked a significant shift in the trajectory of the internet. During this time, the public sphere was becoming digitally sustained by online platforms, including MySpace, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit and more. While this marked a new opportunity for humans to communicate and share information and knowledge, new media became a tool for companies to access and target potential consumers directly. Additionally, political leaders found new ways to leverage social media to communicate with likely voters. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama’s campaign collaborated with “netroots” activists to influence discussions in the online public sphere (Kreiss, 2012, p. 195). While the campaign proved to be successful, upon being studied, researchers found that online conversation surrounding the campaign that seemed organically produced by individual users was strategically disseminated by political actors (Kreiss, 2012, p. 196).

The 2008 Obama campaign marked a significant shift for the internet because powerful actors were now leveraging the platform to identify and adapt to user behaviours to secretly push a given agenda which threatens democracy (Hindman, 2008, p. 142). This has been seen more recently with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Cambridge Analytical scandal, where Facebook users’ personal information was harvested to help target voters. Social media platforms now know that user data through online interactions has commercial value and want to extract it (Rosenberg et al., 2018). Suppose this raises concerns regarding privacy, surveillance and even mis/disinformation camouflaged as regular social media interactions in 2023. In that case, the strategic methods that companies could use in the future to support profit and political goals will likely become more pervasive and difficult to notice in the future.

Furthermore, when examining emerging political discussion in the public sphere, the “missing middle” frame should applied because it does not include all members of society due to wealth and class disparities (Hindman, 2008, p. 142). While digital media platform owners boast accessibility, their platforms remain exclusionary due to the digital divide. In 2073, the potential for only the most powerful and privileged voices to be uplifted on social media increases, while ordinary citizens will have more difficulty hearing their voices (Hindman, 2008, 142).  With modern AI technologies using facial recognition, racial disparities are directly exemplified, and the flexibility of technology to adapt as an extension of our lives also threatens to dehumanize us in the future.

Conclusion

By following the journey of the Internet, it is evident that its origins set the stage for the future dystopic presence of technology in 2073. Examples such as ARPANET, Napster, Obama’s campaign, and current AI capabilities for surveillance and social interaction are negatively permeating the public sphere. It is not only the output on the internet that impacts our society, but equally so, it is the actors and platforms producing it that are leveraging non-human technology to target audiences better and culturally homogenize society. Digital Platforms are extracting value from data using technology. By engaging with non-human tech, we are, in turn, non-humanizing ourselves by quickly having the answer to everything and algorithms, placing us in echo chambers where we can avoid unpleasant or contentious debates. I believe the future will only amplify social inequities unless individuals actively resist corporate authoritarian dominance and harness early internet collectivism to achieve a greater social good.

References

Barreto, E. (2020). Lecture 3: Utopias and Dystopias. Youtube.

Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.

Castells, M. (2011). “The Information Technology Revolution”, The rise of the network society, Chapter 1.

David Pakman. (2019). 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), JCMC624.

Hindman, M. (2008). The Myth of Digital Democracy. Chapter 7. Princeton University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). “What Is Web 2.0?”. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Rosenberg, M., Confessore, N., & Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 17). How trump consultants exploited the Facebook data of Millions. The New York Times.

Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

Author’s bio:

Olivia Meikle has recently graduated from the Communication and Media Studies program with a minor in Canadian Studies from �Ӱ�ԭ�� University. Upon graduating, she was awarded the Senate Medal for Outstanding Academic Achievement for being in the top 3% of students in her program.

Olivia is passionate about leveraging communications to increase technological transparency in Canada. She also enjoys watching films, reading magazines and listening to podcasts of all sorts.

The post Futures Entwined: Technology’s Grip on Society from ARPANET to AI appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Janelle Hamstra

The year is 2073. You’re walking down Bank Street in what used to be Canada’s glowing capital city. On your left, TD Stadium in Lansdowne half stands, and half shrivels to the ground, and there are no more fans left to enjoy sporting events in the community with others. On your right stands the remnants of an abandoned neighbourhood; people haven’t been able to afford to live there for years. Someone passes you, failing to make eye contact not because they’re shy but because they don’t know how to acknowledge human presence in their life. You look up. Something about the orange glow of the sky makes you want to stare at it as long as possible, but you have to look down to avoid tripping on the many cracks in a sidewalk that’s been neglected. It’s time to find some answers. Keep your head down and keep moving. You’ll get to your destination soon if it still exists.

In 2023, we live in a society where digital technology poses no immediate threat to humanity, but that does not mean it never will. Digital technology is advancing at impossible, mind-bending speeds, and its impacts are unknown even to those who build it. By 2073, we will find ourselves living in a dystopian reality primarily shaped by the transformative nature of digital technology. This grim future will manifest through the following key facets: the intrinsic characteristics of digital technology, its profound impact on individuals’ lives, and the far-reaching consequences it exerts on power dynamics and society as a whole.

The Nature of Digital Technology

As you walk, you think back to when you were growing up. Things still seemed under control then—how did all of this destruction come on so quickly?

In “The Information Technology Revolution,” Castells (2011) writes about the striking difference between the information technology revolution and other technological revolutions in history, namely, the industrial revolutions of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One significant marker of the information technology revolution is the speed at which it accelerates and transforms. Castells (2011) attributes this rapid pace of development to the collaborative nature of information technology, as well as its unique flexibility and mobility that allows it to be shared worldwide in seconds.

Castells (2011) proposes a new “socio-technical paradigm” defined by five key characteristics to explain how the information technology revolution profoundly influences both the technological and human sides of society. In short, the five characteristics of this new paradigm are that information is its raw material instead of technology itself, its effects touch every aspect of our lives, and its networking logic means that you need to be part of it; otherwise, you will not be part of society, its based on flexibility, and its technological convergence with older existing systems (Castells, 2011). This paradigm clearly explains why the information technology revolution of today’s age is uncontrollable by nature, meaning the spiral to dystopia could happen at any moment right before our eyes.

Fisher and Wright (2001) describe Ogburn’s theory of cultural lag, which suggests that when new technology is introduced, its effects on society may take time to become apparent. According to Ogburn, this lag between the introduction of technology and its societal adaptation can lead to extreme and often unrealistic interpretations of its impact (Fisher & Wright, 2001). The authors use this idea of cultural lag to soothe societal concerns about the information technology revolution leading to dystopia.

Fisher and Wright’s (2001) article fails to acknowledge the unprecedented qualities of the information technology revolution as Castell’s (2011) article does. As a result, their argument that “society will adjust” is incomplete and not representative of the uniqueness of this revolution. The information technology revolution differs from other technological revolutions and should be treated as such. We are no longer in complete control of technology’s capabilities; instead, it has the unique ability to manipulate our human thought processes, and this capability is growing quicker than we can fathom. This means how we respond and adapt to this revolution, both individually and culturally, will be different from how we have adapted and responded to technological revolutions in the past.

Physical and Psychological Impacts on Individuals

You’re almost there! Parliament Hill. You remember when you were a kid, you used to visit this part of the city every winter for Winterlude and again every summer to see the light show on Centre Block. It used to be so busy on these streets and sidewalks; where have all the people gone?

The digital technology revolution’s most unsettling characteristic is how it affects individuals physically and psychologically. As Douglas Rushkoff explains in Is Our Technology Future Utopian or Dystopian?, there is a digital technology substitute for almost every activity we do (2019). When it comes to our digital diet, Rushkoff argues that not using digital technology at all is best, but since that is nearly impossible, balancing “real world” activities with minimal digital activities is the best way to avoid the harms of digital technology. Digital technology, according to Rushkoff, encourages and enables individuals to live at the scale of a celebrity or a corporation- an exhausting road that leads to failure and stress.

Rushkoff also explains that the internet should be treated like a psychedelic because it alters our realities and perceptions of “real life.” This comparison is compelling and raises the question of whether or not digital technologies should be regulated as heavily as drugs. We use digital technology mindlessly, usually considering how different applications and software will affect our devices but never how they will affect our physical and psychological health. We begin using digital technologies because they are new and exciting, never pausing to wonder if we really need them or if their effects on us will be more positive than negative.

Digital technology is also harmful on an individual level because it encourages physical isolation. While digital technology enables people to connect virtually with one another, it replaces genuine face-to-face connection, an essential part of being in a community with other humans. In this way, you can be part of many online communities but still be plagued with feelings of isolation if you are neglecting a community outside of the virtual sphere. Fisher and Wright (2001) explain that this isolation of individuals is often argued to be destructive to democracy in discussions of dystopia. Digital technology gives off the illusion of a highly connected public sphere where everyone has a voice. Still, there is an enormous gap between those at the centre of the discussion and those on the periphery.

Power Dynamics and Societal Structure

You’ve made it to Parliament Hill! West Block looks different; it is charred by fire but still standing. Speaking of fire, the centennial flame has gone out. You know you normally can’t just walk into Parliament and talk to any government official, but you’re desperate, and it doesn’t seem like anything is exceptionally “normal” right now anyway. So you crack open the spray paint-clad door to Centre Block and head down the hall to where the House of Commons should have a question period- it’s 2:15 on a Thursday. Wait, why is nobody here?

The digital technology revolution will lead to dystopia because of its effects on democracy, power, and privacy. Divisive and extreme responses to the Internet have already manifested themselves in society. The prevalence of cyber-lurkers, privacy concerns, and indecent content online hint at a world where digital technology exacerbates divisions, pushing society further towards a dystopian state (Fisher & Wright, 2001).

As digital technology continues to shape society unchecked by responsible regulation and social adaptation, there is a genuine risk that democratic principles could be eroded. The Internet’s potential for isolating individuals, threatening privacy, and fragmenting society may lead to a scenario where the fundamental pillars of democracy, such as civic engagement and meaningful public discourse, are dismantled (Fisher & Wright, 2001).

As Eduardo Barreto points out in his 2020 lecture on utopias and dystopias, The Iron Heel by Jack London (1908), though it is fictional, illustrates how digital technology can quickly turn a democracy into an oligarchy by isolating people, skewing the public sphere, invading privacy, and spreading misinformation about political issues. 1984 by George Orwell shows us that a dystopian society will not be caused by new technology but by advancing our existing technologies (Barreto, 2020). We see this constantly as our existing technologies become “out of date” and we are persuaded to buy the latest version. We are not above or beyond this imagined reality; it’s closer than we think.

Conclusion

In 2073, the convergence of these three interrelated factors- digital technology’s intrinsic characteristics, its impact on individuals, and its influence on power dynamics- will culminate in a dystopian reality marked by surveillance, social fragmentation, and an erosion of fundamental democratic values. We must anticipate and address these challenges proactively to steer our future away from this grim trajectory. Otherwise, the democratic ideals of an engaged, informed citizenry will be replaced by a fractured, isolated society where the Internet facilitates surveillance and control rather than open dialogue and civic participation.

References

Castells, M. (2011). “The Information Technology Revolution”, from The rise of the network society.

David Pakman Show. May 6, 2019. Is Our Technology Future Utopian or Dystopian? [Video]. Youtube.

Eduardo Barreto. 2020. Lecture 3: Utopias and Dystopias [Video]. 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), JCMC624.

Author’s bio:

Janelle Hamstra graduated from �Ӱ�ԭ�� University’s Communications and Media program in June 2024. After graduating, she moved back to London, Ontario and launched her small business, Janelle Hamstra Digital Marketing. She is now working hard to build up her business using all of the knowledge and skills she attained in her studies. She loves to learn and be challenged with new ideas.

The post The End of an Anti-Utopian Era: How Digital Technology is Leading to Dystopia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.