I like to be agreeable. I’m not really into rocking boats or stirring things up. If there is a flow to be found, I will usually be found going with it.
But today, one day after Trump v2.0 became official, I’m wondering if I should change my tune and say “no” more often. Already the world seems to be changing, and not in any way I’m comfortable with.
There has been a lot of talk about how Big Tech is embracing the wild and wacky world of misinformation in the new era of MAGA. Musk’s malevolent makeover of X has proven to be prescient rather than puerile. Mark Zuckerberg is following suit by sending Meta’s fact-checkers packing. Jeff Bezos first blocked the Washington Post from endorsing Kamala Harris and then dialed back diversity, equity and inclusion at Amazon to be better aligned with Trumpian sensibilities.
All these moves are driven purely by business motives. The Tech Broligarchs (the world’s most exclusive white male club) are greasing the wheels for maximum profitability over the next four years for their respective empires. They are tripping over each other rushing to scatter rose petals at Trump’s toes. When collectively those three are worth close to 1 trillion dollars – well, a dude has the right to protect his assets, doesn’t he?
advertisement
advertisement
I don’t think so. I’m not okay with any of this. As Big Tech primes the profitability pump by pandering to the new president, we are all going to pay a much bigger price. The erosion of social capital is going to be massive. And so, I feel the time has come to say when I don’t agree with something.
We all somehow believe that free markets will eventually lead us to the best moral choice. And nothing could be further from the truth.
Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milt Friedman was wrong when he said, “an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.” This doctrine has guided the corporate world for half a century now, towing along our western governments in its wake. The enshrining of profits as more important than social responsibility has led us inevitably to where we are now, where the personal worth of a handful of tech billionaires is judged as more important than the sustainability and fairness of our own society.
Normally, we would rely on our governments to put legislation in place that protects us from the worst instincts of big business. But yesterday, with the second swearing-in of Donald Trump as president, we saw that dynamic flipped on its head. For the next four years, the U.S. will have a sitting president who will be leading the way in the race to the bottom. Corporate America will be hard-pressed to keep up.
So, if big business is not looking out for us, and our government is looking the other way, who should we turn to? The answer, sadly: There’s no one left but ourselves. If we don’t agree with something -- if the world is going in a direction contrary to our own values -- we have to say something. We also have to do something, becoming a little more defiant.
That is the theme of the brand-new book “Defy,” by organizational psychologist Dr. Sunita Sah. She says that we are typically hard-wired to comply rather than defy: “There are situations where you want to defy, but you go along with it. Maybe the costs are too great, the benefits too meager, or the situation is dangerous. We all have to do that at times, even our defiant heroes like Rosa Parks. How many times did she comply with the segregation laws? A lot, but there comes a moment when we decide now is the time to defy. It’s figuring out when that time is.”
For myself, that time has come.
So, basically, you're admitting you stayed silent during all the horrors of the past four years. Got it. Now sit down.
"By their own words / They will be exposed / They've got a severe case / Of the Emperor's New Clothes..." - Sinéad O'Connor
"Normally, we would rely on our governments to put legislation in place that protects us from the worst instincts of big business."
MP has lost any credibiility for being objective. Where was all the outrage when it became public through the released Twitter files and Zuckerberg's statements that government agencies and high profile individuals in the Biden administration were pressuring and threatening social media platforms to remove truthful information and freezing accounts of individuals who were offering truths.
The laptop was real, the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching covid (or giving it to others) the Steele Dossier was a bunch of made up bs....inconvenient truths for your side does not = "race to the bottom."
Thomas, if you had actually read the post, you would have understood that what I was objecting to was the recent moves by Big Tech. I've been writing about the threat to democracy for the past 10 years plus. I'm good with my stand. You?
So well said. We humans are a lazy bunch (for the most part) and it will be interesting to see what that "moment" is. I suppose it will be on a case-by-case basis. If we're willing to put aside the "buy now" button and do a bit more work, we can use our purchasing power for good. An age-old adage, but pretty much still true. Amazon didn't get to be Amazon because we all got in our cars and went to the local pharmacy.
+1 Gord.
Yes, I think that Friedman's publication in 1962 was the spark that placed the 'profit over people' mantra that was seen to be the saviour for each and everyone. Globally it has an increasing impact of widening the differential between 'the haves' and 'the needy'.
One can hope that the next few years shows that the 1962 'mantra' is shown to be detrimental for the many and that they change their 'hope for their future as well' is modifed.
Maybe the public will wake up to the excesses of wealth and power (and wealth buying power) that are now on display every day. It is up to all of us to pull the pendulum back, and insist on the other half of what Friedman said: "...so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." We, through our democratically-elected representatives set the rules of the game. The excesses and corruption that are now on full display in D.C. may -- we can hope -- move us all to work toward "rules of the game" that work for all of us, not just the techbro billionaires.
A very erudite response Bill. Thank you.
Sadly, I expect that globally many politicians that are NOT in power will leap onto the same strategy so as to assume the power in their own interest.
Could not agree more Gord.
Ken Fadner
Thanks for this piece! Tech billionaires, specifically the Aritstocracy of the Social Media Algorithms has me wondering if the same mentality about business, to "shop small" might be a good path forward. As in if a platform or app is focused on something specific, it is probably smaller than the big platforms and therefore you are likely going to get a rewarding exchange from it.
Additionally, if the massive social platforms get their power, wealth and influence from our views, content creation and sharing of our personal information - then leaving the platform is a form of defiance, and may lead to change if done collectively.
"The horrors!" Dude, the cult got you good. Thoughts and prayers.
Your post and the comment section unequivocally illustrates why there is such bipolarization in America.
People can't communicate properly. Disjointed talking points bundled as counter-arguement.
God Bless
Great and timely article. I have a simple and highly effective solution: Revise the US corporate code to read that corporations exist to maximise profite for shareholders -- and all stakeholders. This eliminates the purely extractive nature of resource usage of all kinds in capitalism and greatly broadens the implications of any ventures beyond the traditional, and completely unsustatinable "bottom line."