Yes and no. The trajectory of the digital ageâespecially in its current "surveillance capitalist" modelâleans toward digital authoritarianism, but it's not inevitable.
Maybe, but authoritarianism as a mode of thinking faces some big challenges in the medium term.
Authoritarianism thrives on rigid thinkingâbut the world is moving fast, and flexibility wins. As Marx noted, dominant ideologies reflect their era, and ours demands adaptability, not obedience. Trumpism needs rigid minds; the future wonât provide them.
Great point, Neilâand I agree that authoritarianism as a mental model struggles in a world demanding adaptability.
Youâre absolutely right: rigid thinking is a liability in a dynamic, decentralized, hyperconnected era. Systems that rely on control through uniformity or obedience will be continuously disrupted by complexityâtechnological, social, and ecological.
But here's the tension: while adaptive systems may outperform authoritarian ones long-term, authoritarian frameworks are often faster at seizing short-term controlâespecially when fear or instability is high. Thatâs what makes this moment critical. If we don't consciously encode adaptability, pluralism, and digital dignity into our systems now, rigid ideologies may still dominate by default.
The challenge ahead is ensuring that adaptability doesn't just surviveâbut scales, structurally and culturally. Thatâs where design, education, and civic tech must all rise to the moment.
Appreciate your insightâthis is the kind of nuanced conversation that moves us forward.
I couldnât agree more. Time is ticking. My point only applies to what makes authoritarianism seem popular in an as-yet-still-democratic country. Once they take the vote away, itâs doesnât matterâŚ
Thank you for sharing, Andreasâyour piece âScenario I: The Age of Algorithmic Authorityâ is a powerful parallel to this conversation.
What resonated deeply was your framing of algorithms not just as tools of prediction, but as emerging arbiters of order, shaping perception and power in subtle but far-reaching ways. We're clearly circling the same core concern: the erosion of human agency when systems become too âintelligentâ to question and too convenient to resist.
I appreciate your scenario-based lensâitâs essential that we donât only critique what is, but explore what could be, so we can act with intention. I look forward to engaging further with your series. Letâs keep mapping this evolving digital terrainâwhile thereâs still space to choose the path forward.
Substack dialogue like this is exactly what we need to disrupt the auto-default toward passivity.
Maybe, but authoritarianism as a mode of thinking faces some big challenges in the medium term.
Authoritarianism thrives on rigid thinkingâbut the world is moving fast, and flexibility wins. As Marx noted, dominant ideologies reflect their era, and ours demands adaptability, not obedience. Trumpism needs rigid minds; the future wonât provide them.
Great point, Neilâand I agree that authoritarianism as a mental model struggles in a world demanding adaptability.
Youâre absolutely right: rigid thinking is a liability in a dynamic, decentralized, hyperconnected era. Systems that rely on control through uniformity or obedience will be continuously disrupted by complexityâtechnological, social, and ecological.
But here's the tension: while adaptive systems may outperform authoritarian ones long-term, authoritarian frameworks are often faster at seizing short-term controlâespecially when fear or instability is high. Thatâs what makes this moment critical. If we don't consciously encode adaptability, pluralism, and digital dignity into our systems now, rigid ideologies may still dominate by default.
The challenge ahead is ensuring that adaptability doesn't just surviveâbut scales, structurally and culturally. Thatâs where design, education, and civic tech must all rise to the moment.
Appreciate your insightâthis is the kind of nuanced conversation that moves us forward.
I couldnât agree more. Time is ticking. My point only applies to what makes authoritarianism seem popular in an as-yet-still-democratic country. Once they take the vote away, itâs doesnât matterâŚ
I was reflecting on this topic also lately:
https://open.substack.com/pub/theafh/p/scenario-i-the-age-of-algorithmic?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=42gt5
Thank you for sharing, Andreasâyour piece âScenario I: The Age of Algorithmic Authorityâ is a powerful parallel to this conversation.
What resonated deeply was your framing of algorithms not just as tools of prediction, but as emerging arbiters of order, shaping perception and power in subtle but far-reaching ways. We're clearly circling the same core concern: the erosion of human agency when systems become too âintelligentâ to question and too convenient to resist.
I appreciate your scenario-based lensâitâs essential that we donât only critique what is, but explore what could be, so we can act with intention. I look forward to engaging further with your series. Letâs keep mapping this evolving digital terrainâwhile thereâs still space to choose the path forward.
Substack dialogue like this is exactly what we need to disrupt the auto-default toward passivity.
https://information-warfare.com/beyond-prediction-literature-as-countermap-in-the-age-of-algorithmic-control-6dc34a8df0e7
Onward,
Alexious Fiero
Intellectual Enlightenment
Thank you so much, I feel the same. I started to work on scenario II, need to iron out a few things before I can publish it but it's time...