Should We Worry About a Tech-Industrial Complex?

In his final speech before the end of his term President Biden warned that “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” He further warned that a “tech-industrial complex” was a threat to American democracy as well. While it isn’t unusual for presidents to express warnings and concerns about the future of the country when they reach the end of their term, it’s worth considering how the rise of technology can and is contributing to concentrations of power and money and the effect that it might have on democracy. Does the rise of tech companies, especially given the emergence of AI and our potential reliance on it really represent a threat to democracy or is this phenomenon nothing new?

First, it is worth clarifying the nature of Biden’s final warnings. His reference to a tech-industrial complex echoes Eisenhower’s final presidential warning about the military-industrial complex. The military and the defense industry have been able to shape public policy because of their great influence and mutual interests. Defense industry contractors’ promises to invest in congressmembers state or district or to donate to campaigns in exchange for greater military funding are powerful tools. The concern, likely similar to Biden’s, is that this arrangement is not in the country’s best interests.

Unlike military production where factories can be built in districts to attract political support, much of the political support for the tech sector stems from the promise of greater efficiency and convenience from their products and services. This in turn creates greater dependence on technology and support for the tech sector. As many of these companies own prominent media outlets, they have enormous opportunity and leeway to advance their interests.

Might this concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy few threaten democracy?

Biden’s worry is not new. Political scientists have been arguing for over a decade that the U.S. is already an oligarchy. Wealth inequality has only gotten worse, the fundamental dynamics of the super wealthy owning the vast majority of the total wealth is also not a new dynamic. Nor is the idea that political parties are dependent on the super wealthy for donations.

Indeed, the U.S. has survived previous robber barons. Fortunately, the United States Constitution was designed – with all its checks and balances – to minimize such threats. Thus far, it has remained resilient in the face of these oligarchical forces.

But this time might be different. The particular means by which the tech sector builds influence can be especially problematic. Unlike military production, the tech sector, particularly through the use of AI, is capable of personally affecting many more people on an individual level and across all industries. The promise of efficiency is often incentive enough to significantly change the way a business or institution operates – changes that prove difficult to reverse or abandon.

This increasing dependency can lead to an omni-presence of tech that is hard to opt out of. Are you looking for a job, seeking medical care, or in the market for insurance? Chances are an algorithm will determine the outcome.

But the consequences of the tech-industrial complex’s stranglehold run deeper. Philosopher Thomas Christiano has argued that democracy requires accessible information that can be used to form and advance one’s interests. This is what he calls “informational power.” However, since most information is transmitted (and filtered) through tech platforms like social media, we remain dependent on tech companies for the knowledge we need to advance those interests. As Christiano notes, those who control these tech platforms do not share the same interests as the general public. and yet they play an outsized role in shaping what information is shared.

In other words, while some aspects of the modern world are nothing new, it may be that a tech-industrial complex is far more wide ranging, unavoidable, and deeply tied to our own personal interests in a way that a military-industrial complex never could be. Northrop Grumman could likely never hope to have the kind of personal influence over you that a corporation that develops hiring algorithms, or medical technology, or even media companies ever could. They also create a level of personal dependence that seems unavoidable and which leaves us unable to recognize problems and advance our own interests.