Who dares to resist the tide of progress in an era dominated by technology? As tech's influence permeates every aspect of our lives, a growing resistance movement is pushing back against the digital onslaught. But who are these modern Luddites, and what compels them to swim against the current?
In this post, we'll take a closer look at the individuals resisting the relentless march of technology. We'll uncover who these tech sceptics are, what motivates their opposition to the digital age, and how their actions and beliefs impact our society. Join me as we delve into the compelling reasons behind this growing movement and examine the ripple effects it's creating in our technology-driven world.
The Historical Struggle of the Luddites: Early Resistance to Technological Change
In the early 19th century, a group of workers known as the Luddites emerged in England, primarily among weavers. They were vocal about their strong opposition to new machinery and were genuinely scared that these machines would make their skills useless and take away their jobs. [i]Unlike today's protests, which often happen in democratic societies, the Luddites had a much tougher time. They couldn't openly fight against these changes because doing so could lead to severe punishment [ii].
The Luddites are particularly famous for their dramatic machine-breaking activities. Smashing machines was their way of saying "no" to technological advancements, and this set a trend for future workers' movements facing similar issues [iii]. Among their many rebellious acts, the Luddite rebellion of 1811-1812 is one of the most iconic moments in the history of resisting technological change [iv].
The story of the Luddites gives us a historical lens through which to view the ongoing battle between labour and technology. Essentially, it highlights the fear and uncertainty that often accompany technological progress, especially when it threatens to change the way people work and live. This clash between the old and the new is still very relevant in today's fast-changing economic world.
Meet the Modern Luddites: Champions of Tech Resistance in the Digital Age
At the start of the blog, I asked, in an era dominated by technology, who dares resist progress? Despite the pervasive influence of tech in our lives, many individuals and groups are pushing back against the tide. These modern Luddites are driven by concerns over privacy, job security, environmental sustainability, and ethical use of technology. But who are they, and what fuels their defiance against the digital revolution? Let's explore the new wave of tech resistance shaping our world today.
The Contemporary Critics of Technology: Advocating for Ethical and Humane Tech Practices
In today's world, a growing group of individuals are raising important questions and concerns about the rapid advancement of technology. These contemporary critics, sometimes referred to as modern critics rather than modern Luddites, focus on various issues, including data privacy, social media addiction, and the ethical implications of artificial intelligence[v].
Prominent voices in this movement include Jaron Lanier and Tristan Harris, both champions of improving technology for people. They're deeply involved with organisations like the Center for Humane Technology, which is all about raising awareness of the potential downsides of our tech habits and pushing for a more human-centred approach to technology development and use[vi] . Their goal? To ensure that our tech innovations complement our lives rather than complicate them.
These critics are primarily motivated by concerns about the societal impacts of technology. Data privacy is a significant issue, as the vast amounts of personal information collected by tech companies can be misused or inadequately protected. Social media addiction is another critical concern, with many worried about the effects of constant connectivity and the pressure to engage on social platforms. Ethical considerations surrounding AI are also at the forefront, particularly regarding how these technologies are developed and deployed[vii].
Tristan Harris, for example, has been very vocal about the problems associated with the attention-merchant business model, where companies profit from capturing and holding users' attention for as long as possible. He emphasises the importance of governing AI to safeguard democracy and ensure these powerful tools are used responsibly and ethically [viii]. The Center for Humane Technology, co-founded by Harris, seeks to influence both public opinion and governmental policies to ensure that technology development prioritises human well-being over mere technological progress [ix].
In summary, modern critics of technology advocate for a more thoughtful and ethical approach to technology development and use. They stress the importance of prioritising human well-being and societal good, ensuring that technological advancements do not come at the expense of our fundamental values and rights.
The Fight for Fairness: Gig Economy Workers Demand Better Conditions
The gig economy has been buzzing with movements and protests as workers from companies like Uber and Lyft rally for better conditions. Remember the #DeleteUber movement? It's a prime example of how gig workers are making their voices heard [x]. These workers are grappling with job insecurity, lack of benefits, and poor working conditions[xi]. This gig economy, marked by the temporary and often precarious employment of independent contractors, has sparked concerns about the exploitation of low-income service workers, especially when considering gender and racial disparities [xii].
As the gig economy grows, so do the questions about worker safety, the gender differences in safety experiences, and the urgent need for better regulations to protect these workers [xiii]. There are also significant challenges in human resource management and worker solidarity, particularly within online communities [xiv]. Researchers are diving into how the gig economy impacts psychological well-being, skill development, and social sustainability [xv].
The ripple effects of the gig economy extend to labour market transformations, institutional governance, and the overall organisation and work experience [xvi]. Its impact is even felt in sectors like healthcare and insurance, highlighting both opportunities and challenges for gig workers [xvii]. Countries worldwide, including Canada, India, and Kazakhstan, are navigating their own unique regulatory and social challenges as they engage with the gig economy [xviii].
While offering flexibility and new opportunities, the gig economy has brought to light significant issues concerning worker rights and protections. Movements like #DeleteUber and ongoing protests by gig workers highlight the urgent need for better working conditions, job security, and benefits. As we navigate this rapidly evolving economic landscape, addressing these concerns through improved regulations and a more humane approach to technology and employment practices is crucial. By prioritising human well-being and ensuring fair treatment for all workers, we can harness the benefits of the gig economy while mitigating its downsides, leading to a more equitable and sustainable future.
The Environmentalists' Tech Battle: Fighting for a Greener Future
Environmentalists and sustainability advocates are on the front lines, fighting back against technologies that harm our planet. Consider anti-fracking movements and campaigns against the massive energy consumption of data centres [xix] .These eco-warriors are driven by concerns about the ecological impact, resource depletion, and the long-term sustainability of our planet [xx]. For them, balancing economic development with environmental preservation is more than just a fight; it's a moral struggle [xxi].
This opposition to environmentally damaging technologies reflects a larger mission: sustainable development and responsible resource use [xxii] . Environmentalists aim to raise awareness about the negative impacts of certain tech practices on our planet and advocate for greener alternatives [xxiii]. By highlighting the harm caused by activities like fracking or the excessive energy consumption of data centres, they promote a more sustainable approach to technology and economic growth [xxiv].
In the gig economy, these advocates also pay attention to environmental impacts, such as increased carbon emissions from transportation and the disposal of electronic waste generated by digital platforms [xxv]. They're calling for regulations and practices that support environmental sustainability within the gig economy, aligning with broader efforts to combat climate change and promote responsible resource management [xxvi].
Environmentalists and sustainability advocates are essential in steering the conversation towards a greener future. By challenging harmful technologies and pushing for eco-friendly alternatives, they remind us that our technological advancements should not come at the expense of our planet. Their tireless efforts ensure that environmental protection is at the forefront of our development goals, safeguarding our world for future generations. Through their advocacy, they inspire us all to take part in creating a more sustainable and responsible approach to both technology and economic growth.
Understanding the Pushback: Why People Resist Modern Tech
We need to examine many different factors to understand why people are resisting modern technology. Economic worries like job security, stagnant wages, and economic inequality are vast drivers of tech resistance. When workers feel their jobs are at risk or see their income staying the same while costs rise, it's no wonder they resist technologies that could threaten their livelihoods [xxvii].
But it's not just about the money. Social and ethical concerns are also big reasons why people resist new tech. Consider privacy issues, mental health impacts, and moral concerns around AI. With more awareness about data breaches, the adverse effects of social media addiction, and the ethical dilemmas of AI, people are scrutinising and resisting tech that compromises their well-being and rights [xxviii].
Environmental concerns are another major factor. As more people become aware of technology's carbon footprint and resource consumption, environmentalists and sustainability advocates are stepping up their opposition. They're worried about climate change, resource depletion, and the overall sustainability of our planet, pushing back against tech that harms the environment [xxix].
Cultural and identity issues also come into play. Technology can change how we live, our communities function, and even how we see ourselves. When tech threatens traditional values or disrupts social norms, it can spark resistance. People might see certain technologies as threats to cultural heritage, community bonds, or identity, leading them to resist these changes [xxx].
In a nutshell, modern tech resistance is complex and driven by a mix of economic, social, ethical, environmental, and cultural factors. By understanding these diverse motivations, we can better grasp the intricate dynamics behind the pushback against technological change in today’s society.
The Modern Luddites: Shaping Tech with a Human Touch
Modern Luddites, pushing back against tech advancements, are making waves in public policy, tech development, and cultural shifts. Their impact is seen in how they influence tech regulations, data privacy laws, and labour rights, ensuring that new technologies are developed with ethical and user-centred designs. They also contribute to changing social norms and behaviours around tech use.
Modern Luddites are critical players in the conversation regarding public policy and regulation. They highlight the potential downsides of unchecked tech progress, pushing policymakers to consider ethical implications and implement rules that protect user privacy, data security, and fair labour practices [xxxi]. Their advocacy helps create a balanced regulatory environment that values innovation and societal well-being.
In tech development, these resistors are shaping how new technologies are made. They push for transparent, accountable, and empowering tech by spotlighting ethical concerns and promoting user-centred design [xxxii]. This resistance fosters a culture of responsible innovation, considering the broader societal impacts of tech advancements [xxxiii].
Culturally, movements led by modern Luddites, like digital detoxing, are changing how we think about and use technology. They advocate for a more mindful approach to tech consumption and digital well-being, challenging the norm of constant connectivity [xxxiv]. Their efforts encourage people to rethink their relationship with technology, leading to shifts in behaviour and attitudes toward its role in our lives [xxxv].
In conclusion, modern Luddites significantly impact society, influencing public policy, shaping technological development, and driving cultural shifts. By raising awareness about technology's ethical, social, and environmental implications, they play a crucial role in promoting a more thoughtful and responsible approach to technological innovation.
Wrapping It Up: The Vital Role of Modern Tech Resistance
As we've explored throughout this blog, the resistance to technological advancement isn't just a relic of the past. Modern Luddites, tech sceptics, and various advocacy groups continue to play a crucial role in shaping the future of technology. From safeguarding data privacy and promoting ethical AI to fighting for fair labour practices and environmental sustainability, these resistors challenge us to consider the broader implications of our technological progress.
Their efforts remind us that technology should ultimately serve humanity, not vice versa. Modern Luddites and like-minded advocates help ensure our digital future is equitable and sustainable by raising important questions and pushing for responsible innovation. As we navigate this ever-evolving tech landscape, it's vital to keep their voices in the conversation, ensuring that progress doesn't come at the cost of our fundamental values and well-being.
We can harness its benefits while mitigating its potential downsides by embracing a more thoughtful and humane approach to technology. This balanced perspective is vital to fostering a future where technological advancements enhance our lives without compromising our rights, jobs, or planet.
[i] Kjell Erik Lommerud, Frode Meland, and Odd Rune Straume, ‘Globalisation and Union Opposition to Technological Change’, Journal of International Economics 68, no. 1 (1 January 2006): 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.03.002; Antonio Martins-Neto et al., ‘Is There Job Polarization in Developing Economies? A Review and Outlook’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY, 2021), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3979349.
[ii] Frank den Hond and Frank G. A. de Bakker, ‘Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities’, Academy of Management Review 32, no. 3 (July 2007): 901–24, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275682.
[iii] Alberto Mingardi, ‘Thomas Hodgskin, Rational Optimist’, Economic Affairs 38, no. 1 (2018): 38–57, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12276.
[iv] Lommerud, Meland, and Rune Straume, ‘Globalisation and Union Opposition to Technological Change’.
[v] Ryan Wold, ‘Segmentation, Surveillance, and Automation: Practical and Ethical Considerations for Attracting, Sustaining, and Monetizing Audience Attention Online - Ryan Wold, 2023’, 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10506519221143107; Tristan Harris and Sarah Frueh, ‘The Complexity of Technology’s Consequences Is Going Up Exponentially, But Our Wisdom and Awareness Are Not’, 2023, https://issues.org/tristan-harris-humane-technology-misinformation-ai-democracy/.
[vi] Wold, ‘Segmentation, Surveillance, and Automation: Practical and Ethical Considerations for Attracting, Sustaining, and Monetizing Audience Attention Online - Ryan Wold, 2023’.
[vii] Harris and Frueh, ‘The Complexity of Technology’s Consequences Is Going Up Exponentially, But Our Wisdom and Awareness Are Not’.
[viii] Harris and Frueh.
[ix] Wold, ‘Segmentation, Surveillance, and Automation: Practical and Ethical Considerations for Attracting, Sustaining, and Monetizing Audience Attention Online - Ryan Wold, 2023’.
[x] Alessandro Gandini, ‘Labour Process Theory and the Gig Economy’, Human Relations 72, no. 6 (2018): 1039–56, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002.
[xi] Gandini; Niels v. Doorn, ‘Platform Labor: On the Gendered and Racialized Exploitation of Low-Income Service Work in the “On-Demand” Economy’, Information Communication & Society 20, no. 6 (2017): 898–914, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1294194.
[xii] Doorn, ‘Platform Labor: On the Gendered and Racialized Exploitation of Low-Income Service Work in the “On-Demand” Economy’.
[xiii] Karl Cox, Jon G. Hall, and Lucia Rapanotti, ‘A Roadmap of Problem Frames Research’, Information and Software Technology, Special Issue on Problem Frames, 47, no. 14 (1 November 2005): 891–902, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2005.08.003; Vedant Choudhary and Shambhulinganand S. Shireshi, ‘Analysing the Gig Economy in India and Exploring Various Effective Regulatory Methods to Improve the Plight of the Workers’, Journal of Asian and African Studies 57, no. 7 (2022): 1343–56, https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096221082581.
[xiv] Jeroen G. Meijerink and Anne Keegan, ‘Conceptualizing Human Resource Management in the Gig Economy’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 34, no. 4 (2019): 214–32, https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-07-2018-0277; Peter K. Schou and Eliane Bucher, ‘Divided We Fall: The Breakdown of Gig Worker Solidarity in Online Communities’, New Technology Work and Employment 38, no. 3 (2022): 472–92, https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12260.
[xv] Minelle E. d. Silva and Sara Nyobe, ‘Social Sustainability in the Gig Economy Era’, Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle 37, no. 1 (2023): 55–69, https://doi.org/10.53102/2023.37.01.1140; Lee S. Woon et al., ‘Impact of JD-R Model on Psychological Well-Being of Gig Workers’, 2022, 12–20, https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-21-3_3.
[xvi] Pearl M. Lin et al., ‘Labor Market Transformation in the Hospitality Gig Economy in a Post-Pandemic Era: Impacts of Institutional Governance', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35, no. 4 (2022): 1490–1510, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-12-2021-1531; Sarah Kaine and Emmanuel Josserand, ‘The Organisation and Experience of Work in the Gig Economy’, Journal of Industrial Relations 61, no. 4 (2019): 479–501, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185619865480.
[xvii] Turki Alanzi, 'Prospects of Integrating Gig Economy in the Saudi Arabian Healthcare System From the Perspectives of Healthcare Decision-Makers and Practitioners', Journal of Healthcare Leadership Volume 13 (2021): 255–65, https://doi.org/10.2147/jhl.s323729; Ben Kajwang, ‘Role of the Gig Economy in the Insurance Sector’, Journal of Business and Strategic Management 7, no. 1 (2022): 19–28, https://doi.org/10.47941/jbsm.762.
[xviii] Sabina Insebayeva, ‘Digital Platform Employment in Kazakhstan: Can New Technologies Solve Old Problems in the Labor Market?’, International Labor and Working-Class History 103 (2023): 62–80, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0147547923000200; Sung‐Hee Jeon, Huju Liu, and Yuri Ostrovsky, ‘Measuring the Gig Economy in Canada Using Administrative Data’, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D Économique 54, no. 4 (2021): 1638–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12558; Joshua Healy, Andreas Pekarek, and Ariadne Vromen, 'Sceptics or Supporters? Consumers' Views of Work in the Gig Economy, New Technology Work and Employment 35, no. 1 (2020): 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12157.
[xix] Autumn Thoyre, ‘Constructing Environmentalist Identities Through Green Neoliberal Identity Work’, Journal of Political Ecology 22, no. 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21082.
[xx] Autumn Thoyre, ‘Constructing Environmentalist Identities Through Green Neoliberal Identity Work’, Journal of Political Ecology 22, no. 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21082.
[xxi] Clinton Amos, Nancy Spears, and Iryna Pentina, ‘Rhetorical Analysis of Resistance to Environmentalism as Enactment of Morality Play Between Social and Ecological Well‐Being’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 50, no. 1 (2015): 224–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12081.
[xxii] Clinton Amos, Nancy Spears, and Iryna Pentina, ‘Rhetorical Analysis of Resistance to Environmentalism as Enactment of Morality Play Between Social and Ecological Well‐Being’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 50, no. 1 (2015): 224–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12081.
[xxiii] Autumn Thoyre, ‘Constructing Environmentalist Identities Through Green Neoliberal Identity Work’, Journal of Political Ecology 22, no. 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21082.
[xxiv] Clinton Amos, Nancy Spears, and Iryna Pentina, ‘Rhetorical Analysis of Resistance to Environmentalism as Enactment of Morality Play Between Social and Ecological Well‐Being’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 50, no. 1 (2015): 224–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12081.
[xxv] Rajesh Gupta and Rajneesh K. Gupta, ‘Lost in the Perilous Boulevards of Gig Economy: Making of Human Drones’, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 10, no. 1 (2022): 85–106, https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221101259.
[xxvi] Rajesh Gupta and Rajneesh K. Gupta, ‘Lost in the Perilous Boulevards of Gig Economy: Making of Human Drones’, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 10, no. 1 (2022): 85–106, https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221101259.
[xxvii] Devah Pager and Lincoln Quillian, ‘Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do’, American Sociological Review 70, no. 3 (2005): 355–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000301.
[xxviii] Douglas E. Stevens, ‘The Effects of Reputation and Ethics on Budgetary Slack’, Journal of Management Accounting Research 14, no. 1 (2002): 153–71, https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2002.14.1.153; Minghui Li and Yan Wan, ‘Norms or Fun? The Influence Of Ethical Concerns and Perceived Enjoyment on the Regulation Of Deepfake Information’, Internet Research 33, no. 5 (2023): 1750–73, https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-07-2022-0561.
[xxix] Maya I. Ganesh and Emanuel Moss, ‘Resistance and Refusal to Algorithmic Harms: Varieties of “Knowledge Projects”’, Media International Australia 183, no. 1 (2022): 90–106, https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x221076288.
[xxx] Valentina Anzoise, Debora Slanzi, and Irene Poli, ‘Local Stakeholders’ Narratives About Large-Scale Urban Development: The Zhejiang Hangzhou Future Sci-Tech City’, Urban Studies 57, no. 3 (2019): 655–71, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019828997.
[xxxi] Etty R. Nilsen et al., ‘Exploring Resistance to Implementation of Welfare Technology in Municipal Healthcare Services – A Longitudinal Case Study’, BMC Health Services Research 16, no. 1 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1913-5.
[xxxii] Eric Patterson et al., ‘Omics Potential in Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management’, Plants 8, no. 12 (2019): 607, https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8120607.
[xxxiii] Md. A. K. Azad, Latifah Amin, and Nik M. Sidik, ‘Gene Technology for Papaya Ringspot Virus Disease Management’, The Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014): 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/768038.
[xxxiv] Richard M. Romano and Donald A. Dellow, 'Technological Change, Globalisation, and the Community College', New Directions for Community Colleges 2009, no. 146 (2009): 11–19, https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.362.
[xxxv] Mahmood Ali et al., ‘User Resistance in IT: A Literature Review’, International Journal of Information Management 36, no. 1 (2016): 35–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.09.007.
