Here's a piece I wrote back in 2020 about the narrative flip in the U.S. — how we went from seeing China as a mere copycat incapable of innovation to the ten-foot-tall technological threat that was going to out-compete the U.S. and had to be stopped; and how (at the same moment) we went from the techno-utopian view that tech would bring down authoritarian regimes to the notion that tech was going to keep those regimes firmly ensconced in power. I placed that narrative flip in roughly the year 2016.
https://thechinaproject.com/2020/10/13/fear-of-a-red-tech-planet-why-the-u-s-is-suddenly-afraid-of-chinese-innovation/ It fleshes out my ideas much further, though the piece is brief. I'd appreciate any thoughts on it! All the best, Kaiser On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:32 AM Isaac M <[email protected]> wrote: > Great to see everyone is still here; we are not alone, and we haven't > given up. Cheers! > > As time has shifted and technology has evolved, we've found ourselves > catapulted into a new AI age, seemingly overnight. Despite these, our > mission remains as crucial as ever, just more daunting. > > This is why we can no longer afford to be techno-pessimists. We need to > proactively envision solutions to the challenges ahead and establish a > robust security fabric for all: > > - Philosophical Preparation: We need the arts, ideas, and > interdisciplinary connections more than ever. Venues for debate, like this > channel, are essential for timely discussions and idea exchange. > - Governance Pressure: It's crucial to monitor and regulate the AI arms > race between major tech companies and governments to ensure accountability > and transparency. AI-powered-weapons? No, no, and no. > - **Personal Empowerment**: We must enhance civil technologies that expand > outreach and connect individuals, forming strong networks that dilute > centralized control by homogeneous algorithms. It's vital to protect and > preserve the best of humanity—our professionalism, journalism, and all the > beautiful aspects of our culture—before they are eroded by technological > advances. > > AI has the potential to be immensely powerful and beneficial, but only if > we steer it correctly. The existential concerns we face are not between > algorithms and humans, but among humans themselves. We must keep the door > to the future wide open—not as a hidden passage, but as a gateway > accessible to all, empowering individuals to adapt and thrive. > > Let's watch it and propel it, with the best breed of open techs. > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:07 AM Michael H. Goldhaber < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> A few thoughts in relation to recent posts: >> >> >> Things related to the Internet seem much more complex than surveillance >> issues, privacy issues, and the effects of profit making. As I as I wrote >> years ago, the mere facts that attention is both scare and desirable for >> individuals that will lead to all sorts of societal problems and ill. Thus, >> shortened attention spans, and with that simplified thinking desires to be >> part of the larger group, the value of producing lies, of sounding angry, >> feeling disrespected, and seeking autocracy to correct that would all have >> been problems even without corporate or government surveillance desires. >> >> >> No doubt, the Internet also has led to beneficial social movements, such >> as opposing climate change, protecting nature, opposing racism, and sexism >> and advancing LGBTQ rights, even these are often taken up >> over-simplistically. >> >> >> The question has also been raised here about whether autocracies can >> innovate. obviously they can, but there may be limits to their ability to >> do it because of the lack of free speech between for example, scientists >> who are trying out new ideas. >> >> >> A perhaps perverse example that supposedly has shown this was the failure >> of autocracies to invent the atomic bomb, even though Germany was the >> center of nuclear physics before Hitler, but in both NaziGermany and Japan, >> scientists decided the bomb was impossible. The Soviet Union also fell >> behind in many kinds of innovation, despite their huge scientific and >> technical communities. >> >> >> Of course, autocracies are excellent at copying and perhaps going a >> couple of steps ahead. Meanwhile, it’s true that the huge tech monopolies >> in the US now do their best to stifle outside innovation. And do we really >> need AI? If we do, it’s interesting to ask why China appears to have fallen >> behind in this area, as well as in aspects of chip design. Is it possible >> that one reason is the heavy censorship of the Chinese internet, so that >> “scraping” it is less productive? >> >> >> Best, >> >> Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks. >> >> On Apr 29, 2024, at 7:33 AM, Paola Di Maio <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Kaiser >> (thanks Kate for reposting) >> >> the statement in your post that most resonates with me is >> *Several things can be true at once*. >> >> >> Several seemingly discordant facts can often be true all at once and may >> be referred to as paradoxes >> >> I discuss how surveillance from multiple unknown agency can be used >> subtly to manipulate and drive >> individuals behaviours through psychological abuse , Very common, >> virtually undetectable >> >> https://sites.google.com/view/psyabu/home >> >> >> personal information can be found everywhere, not only on social media, >> >> Is surveillance legal or illegal? Who are these people asking question >> to family and friends, maybe disguised as friendly media who want to >> publish a feature or offer you a nice >> job, instead gathering, distorting and selling your personal information >> to unknown buyers? >> >> >> There are hidden networks of people operating legally (say law >> enforcement agencies or family and friends) >> gathering information about us for legitimate purpose (as they may say, >> they care about you and take an interest) >> and among them there are individuals who can access and sell private >> information to unknown sources for unknown reasons >> (the deviated agency) >> >> Multiple unknown agencies can gather intelligence about specific >> individuals by tapping into every possible source of information >> including friends and family for different reasons. Some may even do so >> for benevolent reasons. Some may blatantly sell information for money or >> other benefit. >> >> >> P >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:34 AM Kate Krauss <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Are we too techno-pessimistic? >>> >>> I pulled out this message from the introductions thread because it >>> didn't get a lot of attention when first posted, but it's fascinating >>> --thanks, Kaiser! >>> >>> I feel ill-equipped to discuss this but I'll get the ball rolling. >>> *Folks on this list? I'd love to hear what you think about Kaiser's post >>> (which is pasted below mine). * >>> By 2013 and the Snowden revelations, tech activists were realizing how >>> much both the US government, and as we already knew, platforms like >>> Facebook were surveilling our lives. (Snowden also revealed how hard the >>> NSA and GCHQ were going after Tor. And they didn't get it, ha.) >>> >>> I had also seen, previously, pervasive, all-encompassing surveillance in >>> China of my activist friends. (They've stopped monitoring your phone calls >>> and they're sitting in your kitchen--not good). So for me it was all of a >>> piece, and I didn't have to imagine what could go wrong if governments >>> conducted unchecked surveillance. And it motivated me to work on these >>> issues. >>> >>> Meanwhile, in the wider US, in late 2015 Trump launched his presidential >>> campaign by demonizing immigrants, then loudly criticized and sanctioned >>> China's trade practices, and later he blamed COVID on China. And by the >>> middle of the pandemic, Asian people in Philly were afraid to walk down the >>> street. So a lot of racist Americans who didn't know much about technology, >>> IP, or China, were mad at China. And there are always China hawks that >>> sincerely or exploitatively go after China in DC. But those are different >>> groups, obviously, than are on this list. >>> >>> The people I know who care about online privacy and digital rights >>> believe (and feel free to speak for yourselves) that if you want privacy >>> and human rights, you have to defend them, whether by building online >>> privacy tools, censorship circumvention tools, or decentralized >>> communications platforms, or educating people in avoiding surveillance, or >>> blurring out your house on Google maps. You have to take action. >>> >>> I myself also think it's important to change laws and regulations, but >>> you still need the technology. I remember that Griffin Boyce and others >>> developed tools >>> <http://I%20remember%20reading%20an%20essay%20by%20an%20internet%20pioneer%20that%20talked%20about%20the%20implications%20of%20online%20surveillance;%20that%20was%20the%20first%20time%20I%20saw%20that%20things%20could%20go%20bad%20on%20the%20internet.> >>> that made the Stop Online Privacy Act impossible to enforce. Another lesson >>> from SOPA: Collective action can get the goods. (Thank you, Aaron Swartz.) >>> >>> So maybe we are techno-optimists and techno-realists at the same time? >>> >>> Mainstream Americans are still inured to a lack of privacy, and that is >>> very dangerous. However, they are now suspicious of Facebook--and maybe >>> that's a good thing. >>> >>> This doesn't mean that Chinese companies are always A+ and never >>> steal IP. I went to a lecture in 2018 or 2019 where a Chinese scholar >>> presented her research studying Chinese companies--and some of them lacked >>> research departments because they were "borrowing" IP. Several things can >>> be true at once. >>> >>> Other people on the list: What do you think? >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: kaiser kuo <[email protected]> >>> LT <[email protected]> >>> >>> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:20:43 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Liberation Tech would like a word. >>> Thanks, Kate, for stepping up to revive this effort — and for the >>> low-key shout-out! >>> >>> I've written and spoken quite a bit on the seemingly sudden swing from >>> the politically techno-utopian idea still present in this listserv's name >>> to the techno-pessimism that seems so pervasive in discourse on the >>> relationship between technology and authoritarian politics. We've gone, as >>> I've often said, from believing that the spread of digital technology >>> sounded the death knell for authoritarian governments to believing instead >>> that tech is the loyal handmaiden of authoritarians, who've become adept at >>> using them to suppress dissent and other nefarious ends. To an extent, I >>> get why this has happened — the failure of the later color revolutions and >>> the Arab Spring, when we too-eagerly appended the names of various American >>> social media products to these revolutions (the "Twitter Revolution," the >>> "YouTube Revolution," the "Facebook Revolution"); the Snowden revelations >>> about Prism; Russian meddling and Macedonian troll farms; Cambridge >>> Analytica, etc). I suppose some humility about it was needed, but have we >>> (i.e. the national or "Western" conversation) overcorrected? I'd be curious >>> to hear from list members with experience in different geographies to get >>> their sense of how things have played out in the last decade. I put the >>> inflection point at roughly 2016: that's when I started sensing the >>> dramatic narrative shift. >>> >>> And I'm curious whether people think that's related to, or completely >>> independent from, another narrative shift that seems to have been >>> simultaneous when it comes, specifically, to China: At about that same >>> moment, the narrative went from this disparagement of China's ability to >>> innovate (blaming, in most cases, the lack of free information flows and >>> academic freedom, and positing a relationship between innovation and >>> political freedom) to a pervasive sense that China was out-innovating the >>> U.S. and was an unstoppable juggernaut ready to eat our lunch. Obviously >>> this latter narrative continues and has been made worse in recent years. >>> >>> Thanks! Once again, Kate, thanks for your efforts!! >>> >>> - Kaiser >>> -- >>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to >>> digest mode, or change password by emailing >>> [email protected]. >>> >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to >> digest mode, or change password by emailing >> [email protected]. >> >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: >> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to >> digest mode, or change password by emailing >> [email protected]. >> > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to > digest mode, or change password by emailing > [email protected]. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable. List rules: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
