Are tech companies really “making the world a better place”? Isn’t “disruption” just code for circumventing legal regulations and ignoring labor laws? Does Silicon Valley really believe its own hype? This week we’re thinking about “The Rhetoric of Big Tech.”

硅谷可能充满了所谓的“技术人员”，但他们的队伍中也有很多讲故事的人。我并不是完全反对讲故事，但一部好的小说和硅谷经常推崇的那种叙事方式是有很大区别的。Weknowthat novels are fiction, not meant to be taken as literal truth. But that’s not what we’re supposed to think when we hear Big Tech talk about “making the world a better place,” “doing no evil,” and “bringing the world together.” We’re supposed to believe what they tell us is fact, not fiction.

There are some ways in which techhasmade the world a better place, of course. Think how much information we have at our fingertips because of the internet, how quickly we can communicate with friends and family despite vast geographic differences.

去年新冠肺炎疫情爆发时，教师们利用信息技术与学生保持联系，能够在安全的家中上课，这在20年前是不可能的。居家隔离和持续数月的社交距离自然会导致孤独感，但想象一下，如果在Covid - 19期间，我们没有智能手机、平板电脑和电脑等技术，情况会变得多么糟糕。

This technology also allows us to discover new communities beyond our local communities, like-minded people who share our interests, be that funny cat videos, cooking, yoga, or some political or social cause. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been especially important for people from marginalized groups who may feel especially alone and isolated where they live, but can now connect with others like them on social media, build solidarity, and organize politically.

But this very same technology has also been used by political extremists to share their various toxic ideologies, harass and bully others, and organize violent actions, including an attempted violent overthrow of a democratic election!

Internet use also leads to the development of many unhealthy habits.Childrenandadultsalike are addicted to their screens, which has all kinds of negative down steam effects such asneurological complications, psychological disturbances, and social problems. And these have ripple effects on the broader culture and political climate.

Are internet companies to blame for all the ills of modern life? No, but it’s important to take a critical look at the role these companies play in making certain events possible. Take the recent events at the Capitol. It's reasonable to ask whether we should hold specific social media companies responsible for allowing violent extremists to recruit and organize on their platforms.

对互联网的一种看法是，它是一种中立的工具，只是方便了跨越地理边界的交流。它就像印刷、电话、广播、电视或任何其他通信技术一样，可以用来做好事，也可以用来作恶。当有人被恶意地用锤子打死时，我们不会责怪制造商。So why should we blame internet companies for allowing extremists to organize a putsch on their platforms that directly led to thedeath of five people(plustwo police officers who took their own lives after the attack)?

Thetechnologyitself might be neutral, but that’s not to say that anything goes for thecompaniesthat bring us this technology. For example, if our hammer manufacturer used images celebrating violent attacks with their hammers, created politically divisive messaging to market their product, and turned a blind eye when people known to have murderous intentions bought a bunch of their hammers, we might start to think differently about their moral responsibility when someone gets bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

Similarly for tech companies—we need to know what theyknew, what theysaid, and what theydidin order to determine their culpability for any particular event or phenomenon.

以社交媒体平台为例，虚假信息大量传播，挑衅、欺凌事件频发。这种情况的发生并非偶然。Fake news and online harassment are big drivers of profitfor these companies. They just prefer to call it “engagement.” When your entire business model is based on growing “engagement” and you know fake news and harassment drive engagement, it’s a bit harder to take seriously disavowals of responsibility for the consequences.

I was horrified to learn recently that Facebook not merely turned a blind eye to extremist groups spreading disinformation and hateful ideologies, and organizing on their platform, but they actively participated in the radicalization process by showing users with certain political affiliationsfear- and aggression-driven advertising warning them to stockpile weapons and accessories. What could possibly go wrong?

The bitter irony of all this is that Facebook’s mission statement is to “bring the world closer together.” Apparently, that is achieved by stoking political paranoia and suggesting militarization as the answer.

Which brings us back to the topic of this week’s show—the rhetoric we hear from Silicon Valley, the stories they like to tell about what they’re doing, and how it fits with what they actually do.

There’s this whole mythology Silicon Valley has built around what they do, all these archetypes they appeal to, like the genius iconoclast with a bold vision for the future, the plucky little startup disrupting an outmoded industry Goliath, the inventor-entrepreneur who drops out of college at 19 to build a “unicorn” company. What this mythologizing does is distract from what they are actually doing. It allows them to dodge responsibility for all the problems to which they’ve contributed.

Our guest this week is Adrian Daub of Stanford University, author of a new book calledWhat Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry Into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley. Josh and Ray talk to him about all the ways Silicon Valley hides profit driven behavior with a veneer of shiny but philosophically suspect rhetoric. Tune in!

Photo byEden ConstantinoonUnsplash