Yes and no. The trajectory of the digital ageāespecially in its current "surveillance capitalist" modelāleans 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 thinkingābut 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 wonāt provide them.
Great point, Neilāand I agree that authoritarianism as a mental model struggles in a world demanding adaptability.
Youāre 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 complexityātechnological, 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 controlāespecially when fear or instability is high. Thatās 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 surviveābut scales, structurally and culturally. Thatās where design, education, and civic tech must all rise to the moment.
Appreciate your insightāthis is the kind of nuanced conversation that moves us forward.
I couldnāt 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, itās doesnāt matterā¦
Thank you for sharing, Andreasāyour piece āScenario I: The Age of Algorithmic Authorityā 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 āintelligentā to question and too convenient to resist.
I appreciate your scenario-based lensāitās essential that we donāt only critique what is, but explore what could be, so we can act with intention. I look forward to engaging further with your series. Letās keep mapping this evolving digital terraināwhile thereās 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 thinkingābut 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 wonāt provide them.
Great point, Neilāand I agree that authoritarianism as a mental model struggles in a world demanding adaptability.
Youāre 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 complexityātechnological, 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 controlāespecially when fear or instability is high. Thatās 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 surviveābut scales, structurally and culturally. Thatās where design, education, and civic tech must all rise to the moment.
Appreciate your insightāthis is the kind of nuanced conversation that moves us forward.
I couldnāt 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, itās doesnāt matterā¦
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, Andreasāyour piece āScenario I: The Age of Algorithmic Authorityā 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 āintelligentā to question and too convenient to resist.
I appreciate your scenario-based lensāitās essential that we donāt only critique what is, but explore what could be, so we can act with intention. I look forward to engaging further with your series. Letās keep mapping this evolving digital terraināwhile thereās 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...