Why doesn’t anyone in Silicon Valley talk about the Techlash?

(Opinions in this piece are those of the author and should in no way be taken to represent those of his exceedingly humble employer.)

Downed my morning coffee with a side of bile: this bracing rant about how Silicon Valley has achieved “peak arrogance” and better snap out of it. The piece, written by a partner at Google Ventures, was rightly taken to task in the comments section for failing to provide concrete examples to illustrate its thesis. In a way, though, this failure makes it more thought provoking. The underlying implication is: the Valley’s arrogance is so pervasive and undeniable that examples would be superfluous. True? As a Googler who’s still fairly new to the culture of global domination, who also has some experience of life at the fringe, I have thoughts…

On the one hand, no. That is: although I could cite individual examples of tech-bro hubris, folks in my team are for the most part a decent, self-effacing bunch. They want to do good in the world. They’re sincere about building a more diverse and inclusive workforce. They’re open to other perspectives, and they’re not afraid to have their preconceptions exploded. They’ll do whatever it takes to provide value for users, including dropping to their knees and saying mea culpas on behalf of the tech industry.

On the other hand, yes. In the wider world of Silicon Valley drones, I have observed a surprising amount of wilful cluelessness. Yes, people understand that the global techlash is gathering steam, and we’re in the crosshairs. So you’d think, being a bunch of analytically-minded individuals, our coffee breaks would be spent huddling in our micro-kitchens, dissecting the news and passionately arguing over causes and solutions. Not the case. When the subject does come up, it’s generally dismissed with pat answers.

Is the public freaking out about giant companies sucking up their personal data? We just need to do a better job communicating the benefits of personalized service. The younger generation already understands that privacy is an outmoded concept and secrets are only for people with something to hide. (So the conversation ends, and we all make our way to the next presentation, which inevitably begins with the reminder that “this information is ridiculously confidential.”)

Is the public worried that the tech titans are using their power to manipulate public opinion by privileging some voices over others? We just need to tune our algorithms to make sure that everyone has a chance to be heard. Is the public worried about bad actors using our platforms to spread fake news and foment violence? We just need to tune our algorithms to ensure that the right voices are prioritized and the wrong voices are suppressed. Is the public worried about the negative effects of social media addiction? We just need to tune our algorithms to ensure that everybody takes a break now and then.

I’m exaggerating, but just a little. And before I go any further I should confess: I’m as guilty as anyone. I’ve nodded along as the pat answers are proffered, and occasionally I’ve been surprised to discover that they were issuing forth from my own mouth.

Why is this the case? Do our hiring committees optimize for cluelessness? Not at all. But you can’t work in any industry without to some extent adopting its lens as your own. Our Big Tech Specs render some realities unnaturally clear, while making us blind to others. It’s not surprising that our myopia looks to the outside world like arrogance.

What are the underlying assumptions that create this distortion field? I can think of three.

1. The Imperative of Growth. Our performance is judged not so much by the quality of thoughts we think, but by the quantity of results we achieve. We’re all chasing those 10x solutions, scouring our environments for use-cases which might benefit from the efficiencies of scale that only a multinational behemoth can provide. Is snuggling with your child and reading her a bedtime story a meaningful experience? Imagine how much more impact you could have by virtually snuggling ten thousand kids!

To be fair, we all acknowledge that large-scale innovations can be scary. Settled patterns of interaction are disrupted, hard-won skills are rendered obsolete overnight and whole industries are shuttered. We’re not blind to the downside of innovation. We worry about it. We organize brainstorms to address it. But nobody stands up at these brainstorms and says “I’ve got it! The solution is, let’s go a little easier on the innovation!” In fact, that scenario is inconceivable. It would be like saying to the woman in labor: “if this is too uncomfortable for you, you can always just keep it inside.” The solution is always, must always be more innovation.

Note: I’m not saying that mindset is wrong. Maybe the solution always is more innovation. But the Big Tech Specs prevent us from seeing the alternative as even a theoretical possibility.

2. Tools > Content. This one requires a little more elaboration, because on an individual level most everybody I work with in Silicon Valley admires content creators. We read. We listen to music. We obsess over movies and TV shows. And we’re honored when our favorite creators make use of the tools and platforms we build.

We also envy them. There’s social capital in being a creative artist, even (especially?) a starving artist, that we toolmakers will never obtain. Those of us who have been professional artists in the past can’t help harboring some nostalgic regrets, no matter how much we appreciate the creative possibilities afforded by our new perches.

Still, the imperative of growth creates a discontinuity between us toolmakers and them creators. Our AIs aren’t yet sophisticated enough to generate readable copy, so we still rely on writers. But writers work slowly: they churn out their text literally one word at a time. Illustrators, musicians, video producers, game studios — all these content creators craft their artisan products at an organic pace, while we process them at hyperspeed.

In the platform of book publishing, the relationship of publisher and author is, ideally, a partnership of equals. The publisher nurtures the author’s career, the author enhances the publisher’s line. But in the world of digital platforms, it seems natural to regard the content creators more as our end-customers than our co-creators. And as our AIs get better at analyzing the impact of every given element of content, and better at proactively suggesting the types of content likely to prove effective, the power imbalance will only become more pronounced.

3. Right makes Might. Big Tech is naturally on the side of more globalization and liberalized markets. All well and good: there’s plenty to be said about the benefits of more globalization and liberalized markets. But the ubiquitous culture wars have the effect of transforming practical issues into cosmic struggles of Good vs Evil. For some, the ideology of globalization is more than just a good idea. It’s a goal that can’t be questioned: it’s Manifest Destiny. And just as the success of the Protestant nations was once seen as irrefutable evidence of divine favor, so the continued success of the digital revolution is seen as proof of its inherent rightness.

Ultimately, that’s the reason people in Silicon Valley don’t seem to regard the techlash as an existential threat. We’re convinced it can’t succeed. Stanford philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy nailed it: we’re all Calvinists now. We believe in predestination.The algorithm has been written, the program has begun executing. The world of the future will be vastly more interconnected. All forms of provincialism will have to give way to global citizenship and self-creation. And AIs will keep constant watch over us, parsing our personal data trails to understand our needs, order our lives and make sure the goods are distributed.

Will the future be a livable one? We’ve all seen Black Mirror…we know that dystopia is a possibility. But so is utopia. The two aren’t necessarily opposites. The distinction might in fact be very subtle, a matter of altering the trajectory of Progress by just a degree or two in one direction or the other. It’s within that narrow spectrum of possibility, the tiny space within which Free Will is still possible, that we operate — we whose job it is to engineer the Future. Make the right tweaks to the algorithm, and that future is freedom, plenty and individual empowerment. Get the tweaks wrong, and it’s digital serfdom, environmental despoliation and war. Or worse.

It’s a tremendous responsibility. Really, you have no idea.

Come to think of it, the problem isn’t Silicon Valley arrogance. Nor is it cluelessness. The problem is that you little people don’t appreciate us!

(Crossposted at Medium)