Home
+
Published : 14 Mar 2019, 01:48 AM
I feel bad for Josef Stalin. He dreamed of creating a totalitarian society where every individual's behaviour could be predicted and controlled. But he was born a century too early. He lived before the technology that would have made being a dictator so much easier!
In the first place, he'd have much better surveillance equipment. These days most interactions are through a computer, so there is always an electronic record of what went on.
The internet of things means that our refrigerators, watches, glasses, phones and security cameras will soon be recording every move we make. In 2017, Levi Strauss made an interactive denim jacket, with sensors to detect and transmit each gesture, even as minimal as the lifting of a finger. Soon prosecutors will be able to subpoena our driverless cars and retrieve a record of every place they took us.
And this is not even to mention the facial recognition technology the Chinese are using to keep track of their own citizens. In Beijing, facial recognition is used in apartment buildings to prevent renters from subletting their apartments.
One Chinese firm, Yitu, installed a system that keeps a record of employees' movements as they walk to the break room or rest room. It records them with blue dotted lines on a monitor. That would be so helpful for your thoroughly modern dictator.
In the second place, thanks to artificial intelligence, Uncle Joe would have much better tools for predicting how his subjects are about to behave. As Shoshana Zuboff wrote in her book "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," when you are using Google, you are not Google's customer. You are Google's raw material. Google records everything you do; then it develops models that predict your behaviour and then it sells those models to advertisers, which are its actual customers.
Thanks to this business model, some of the best minds in the world have spent tens of billions of dollars improving tools that predict personal consumption. This technology, too, has got to come in handy for any modern-day Stalin.
Third, thanks to big data, today's Stalin would be able to build a massive Social Credit System to score and rank citizens, like the systems the Chinese are now using. Governments, banks and online dating sites gather data on, well, everybody. Do you pay your debts? How many hours do you spend playing video games? Do you jaywalk?
If your score is too low, you can get put on a blacklist. You may not be able to visit a museum. You may not be able to fly on a plane, check into a hotel, visit the mall or graduate from high school. Your daughter gets rejected by her favourite university.
Back in Stalin's day, social discipline was so drastic. You had to stage a show trial (so expensive!), send somebody to the gulag or organise a purge. Now your tyranny can be small, subtle and omnipresent. It's like the broken windows theory of despotism. By punishing the small deviations, you prevent the big ones from ever happening.
Fourth, you don't have to go through all the trouble of staging a revolution. You just seduce people into a Faustian bargain. You offer to distract them for eight hours a day with animal videos and relatable memes, and they surrender their privacy to you and give you access to their brains.
As online life expands, neighbourhood life and social trust decline. As the social fabric decays, social isolation rises and online viciousness and swindling accumulate, you tell people that the state has to step in to restore trust. By a series of small ratcheted steps, you've been given permission to completely regulate their online life.
This, too, is essentially what is happening in China.
As George Orwell and Aldous Huxley understood, if you want to be a good totalitarian, it isn't enough to control behaviour. To have total power you have to be able to control people's minds. With modern information technology, the state can shape the intimate information pond in which we swim.
I don't want to pretend that everything will be easy for the Stalin of the 21st century. Modern technology makes it easier to control people, but it also creates a mindset in which people get much angrier about being controlled.
When people have a smartphone in their hand, they feel that they should have a voice, that they should be broadcasting, that they should have agency and dignity. When they discover they are caught in an information web that is subtly dominating them, they react. When they realise that ersatz information webs can't really create the closeness and community they crave, they react.
Angry movements and mobs arise spontaneously. What you get is a system of elite domination interrupted by populist riots.
Human history is a series of struggles for power. Every few generations, just for fun, the gods give us a new set of equipment that radically alters the game. We thought the new tools would democratise power, but they seem to have centralised it. It's springtime for dictators.
© 2019 New York Times News Service
