Biden’s Warning: The Rise of Oligarchy and the Tech-Industrial Complex
Former President Joe Biden, in his parting words from the White House, issued a stark warning about the growing influence of an American oligarchy and the emergence of a "tech-industrial complex." This powerful elite, Biden argued, poses a significant threat to democracy, fundamental rights, and equal opportunity. His concerns mirror those of President Eisenhower, who famously cautioned against the military-industrial complex’s unchecked power in 1961. Biden’s remarks highlighted the dangerous concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a select few, emphasizing the need to address the potential abuse of this power. He also expressed apprehension about the rising tech-industrial complex, comparing its potential dangers to those posed by the military-industrial complex.
A symbolic moment during President Trump’s inauguration underscored Biden’s concerns. Tech giants like Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook were given prominent positions among the audience, exceeding even cabinet nominees in visibility. While some might interpret this as a celebration of American innovation, others saw it as a display of fealty reminiscent of oligarchs in the Kremlin. This highlighted the growing power and influence of the tech industry in the political landscape. Biden further warned about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation, which are eroding the foundations of public discourse and trust in information. He lamented the decline of the free press and the rise of unchecked social media platforms that prioritize profit over truth. This onslaught of false and misleading information, Biden argued, is hindering the ability of citizens to make informed decisions and participate effectively in a democracy.
The flood of misinformation and disinformation is undermining the very basis of democratic discourse, making it increasingly difficult to establish consensual truths that are essential for effective governance. In the absence of reliable information, narrative wars dominate, with individuals filtering information through pre-existing biases and beliefs. This phenomenon creates a vicious cycle where people "see what they believe" rather than "believe what they see," further exacerbating polarization and hindering productive dialogue. The information age, which promised to empower citizens with knowledge and facilitate self-government, is instead becoming a breeding ground for manipulation and deception.
Renee DiResta, in her analysis published in Noema Magazine, explores the evolving media landscape and the phenomenon of online communities fracturing into politically homogenous, self-governing entities. She attributes this splintering not to technological advancements or regulatory actions but to content moderation efforts. Partisan users, she argues, clashed with moderators tasked with enforcing rules against hate speech and misinformation. These moderation attempts, even when nuanced, were often perceived as unreasonable suppression by ideologues seeking to control online discourse. This dynamic fueled a feedback loop, where online norms intensified offline polarization and vice-versa. Consequently, users migrated to alternative platforms like Truth Social, Telegram, and Mastodon, seeking spaces with less stringent or self-appointed moderation. This exodus occurred largely along political lines, further exacerbating societal divisions.
DiResta terms this phenomenon the “Great Decentralization,” characterized by a shift away from large, centralized platforms to smaller, ideologically aligned online spaces. This trend is transforming social media into a form of "digital federalism," where individual communities establish their own norms and governance structures. Unlike centralized platforms with top-down control, federated platforms rely on decentralized protocols like ActivityPub and AT Protocol, giving users greater control over content moderation and curation. However, this decentralized approach also presents challenges, particularly in addressing harmful content and maintaining social cohesion. Without a central authority, there is no consistent enforcement of rules or mediation of systemic issues. This raises concerns about the potential for increased fragmentation, siloed perspectives, and the erosion of shared spaces crucial for consensus and compromise.
The decentralized nature of online platforms also presents challenges for addressing illegal or harmful content, as there is no single authority to enforce rules consistently. This fragmentation raises deeper concerns about social cohesion and the potential for exacerbating ideological silos, further eroding the shared spaces needed for consensus and compromise in a democratic society. The very tools that empower users to curate their feeds and block unwanted content may unintentionally amplify divisions and limit exposure to diverse perspectives. This reinforces existing biases and makes it harder to bridge the gaps between different viewpoints. Biden’s characterization of a "tech-industrial complex" perhaps more accurately reflects a broader "digital media ecosystem." This ecosystem encompasses not only the influence of platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Meta, but also the vast network of self-contained virtual communities DiResta describes.
The decentralized nature of online platforms makes it impossible to revert to a time when a few powerful entities controlled the flow of information. Therefore, the most effective way to address the challenges posed by this ecosystem is not to attempt to control it directly, but rather to focus on the intersection of information and the political sphere. The focus should shift from "community" self-monitoring within isolated online spaces to fostering public deliberation across platforms. This requires the creation of impartial, countervailing online platforms commensurate with the scale of political jurisdictions. These neutral spaces would allow competing narratives to be presented and debated in the full view of the public, facilitating the process of sorting through conflicting information and reaching consensus through negotiation and compromise.
In an era where social networks have amplified individual voices and challenged the traditional logic of representative government, the need for new mediating institutions is becoming increasingly apparent. These institutions must complement and compensate for the waning legitimacy of traditional representative structures. Just as republics have historically implemented checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power, similar mechanisms are needed to address the distributed nature of information flows and empower the public sphere. This could involve regulations on media ownership, the development of neutral online platforms for public deliberation, and mechanisms for verifying information and combating disinformation. These efforts are crucial for safeguarding democratic processes and fostering informed public discourse in the digital age.