2
Does Tech Have Any Solutions?

Introduction

Most people working in and around technology tend to be remarkably untroubled by the issues outlined in Chapter 1. Indeed, many tech industry insiders (and their supporters) remain confident that any environmental and societal harms are temporary glitches that will soon be overcome through the development of even more powerful new technologies. According to this logic, the development of 'fair' AI systems will put an end to algorithmic discrimination and other digital harms. Similarly, concerns around carbon emissions will be sidestepped through alternative energy approaches. Such optimism follows the popular solutionist mindset that problems (no matter how big) can be fixed through digital innovation and human ingenuity. For the time being, at least, many experts remain confident that we can continue looking forward to an even greater digital future. Regardless of any of the issues raised in Chapter 1, mainstream opinion remains buoyed by the reassurance that 'tech will save us'.

Such complacency is not unique to the current digital age. Indeed, faith in 'technological fixes' arguably peaked during the 1960s' development of nuclear power, space technology and other innovations of the Cold War period (Johnson 2018). Yet, current generations seem remarkably willing to buy into the specific idea of digital technologies offering ready solutions to the world's major problems. Morgan Ames (2019) attributes this to the 'charismatic' and other-worldly nature of digital technology. In a similar vein, Campolo and Crawford (2020) point to the 'enchanted' ways in which emerging technologies such as AI are perceived; they see this mass enchantment as driven by the common belief that digital technologies 'are both magical and superhuman - beyond what we can understand'. Viewed through this wonderous lens, there is no problem or challenge that cannot be remedied through the development of yet more new technology.

Techno-solutions to the societal unsustainability of digital tech

Techno-solutionist thinking certainly abounds when it comes to the various concerns raised in Chapter 1 around the technological exacerbation of deep-rooted societal harms. Despite digital technology being a long-standing source of social disadvantage and disharmony, there is now increasing talk around the design, development and deployment of new digital technologies to address the biggest impending social problems of our times. This is often expressed through mantras such as 'Tech for Good', 'AI for Good', 'Data for Good' and similar (see Madianou 2021; Aula and Bowles 2023). Of course, definitions of this 'good' tend to remain vague. For example, Alison Powell et al. (2022) define 'Tech for Good' as any 'technology developed or employed to advance human flourishing or for social purpose'. Perhaps because of this catch-all quality, the idea of digital technology 'for good' is now driving various new waves of tech enthusiasm in fields such as education, healthcare, humanitarian aid and other areas of public and civic responsibility.

Most of the Big Tech corporations highlighted in Chapter 1 have added a 'for good' dimension to their ambitions. For example, Google's 'AI for Social Good' group boasts 'a shared focus on positive social impact' and a mission statement of 'Applying AI to make a difference in the lives of those who need it most'. Landmark projects range from the development of AI tools to predict the real-time spread of wildfires, through to apps designed to help otherwise reticent children learn to read. There is growing interest in AI-driven 'homelessness support systems' and predictive modelling that can save endangered species. Such projects are driven by optimistic and solutionist ambitions, where the development of digital technologies inevitably leads on to solving big ticket problems. As is usually the way in Silicon Valley, this work tends to be talked up in grand terms of global transformation and revolution. As Mark Zuckerberg (2012) put it in a letter to Facebook shareholders:

There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future. The scale of the technology and infrastructure that must be built is unprecedented, and we believe this is the most important problem we can focus on.

At first glance, such claims around emerging technology might be dismissed as empty commercial sloganeering and marketing. The suffix 'for Social Good' certainly provides powerful Big Tech corporations with a means to disingenuously align their commercial interests with humanitarian ideals (Magalhães and Couldry 2021). As Richard Gall (2021) puts it: '"Tech for good" isn't really a movement. It's more of a posture . a useful phrase that allows users to greenwash an industry that has little interest in anything other than entrenching its own power and wealth.' Yet, while some elements of the tech industry have undoubtedly latched on to 'Tech for Good' in a self-serving manner, many tech firms present themselves as driven by a belief that digital technology is capable of leveraging substantial social change. In this sense, the main problem with the idea of 'Tech for Good' is not outright dishonesty per se, but tech industry naivety and/or hubris about the societal impact that any technology can have. Corporations such as Google and Meta wield great influence, and their confidence in tackling big social issues inevitably has far reaching consequences, regardless of the actual extent to which their technologies can address the problems they purport to solve.

Of course, the capacity of digital technology to actually effect any social change remains a moot point. The past twenty years or so have seen poverty levels soar in even the most prosperous countries, along with forced migration, health inequalities and most other societal ills continuing to reach ever more catastrophic levels. All told, there are very few social issues that appear to have been meaningfully addressed (let alone solved) through the application of digital technology. As such, it objectively makes little sense to expect any new tech efforts to be capable of significantly shifting the needle on the societal concerns outlined in Chapter 1. Instead, we need to push back against the prevailing wisdom that the answer to technology-induced societal problems is somehow the development of additional technology. The driving premise of this book is that we need to think much more innovatively than that.

What is wrong with 'Tech for Good'?

Advocates of Tech for Good might consider these latter comments to be rather mean-spirited and regressive. Any criticisms of Tech for Good are usually rebutted as negativity on the part of non-technologists who have never built technologies and who are incapable of 'thinking outside of the box'. Yet it makes little sense to expect technological innovation to somehow overcome the societal problems raised so far in this book. Indeed, there are various reasons to suspect that putting our collective faith in the Tech for Good approach might only exacerbate levels of societal division, disadvantage and dysfunction. In short, there are very good grounds to argue that Tech for Good is not a desirable way forward.

First and foremost are the narrow redefinitions of what constitutes social problems. The idea of Tech for Good understandably focuses on societal issues to which digital technology is particularly suited, or, worse still, reduces complex social issues to overly simplified forms that digital technology can then get applied to. As Aula and Bowles (2023) put it, the Tech for Good movement tends to narrowly define what constitutes social good 'through the attributes of novel computational techniques'. This means that complicated social issues that are generally accepted to be insurmountable tend to get overlooked, as are issues that are not deemed worthy (or simply interesting) enough to sustain the attention of tech developers. All this runs the risk that Tech for Good efforts are driven by technological - rather than social - motivations and result in the inappropriate deployment of technology.

In addition, Tech for Good efforts tend to frame social issues as best addressed through privatized and corporate efforts (Madianou 2021). As Radhika Radhakrishnan (2021) contends, the application of 'Tech for Social Good' in fields such as healthcare and education are underpinned by presumptions that private sector interventions are the most effective means of redressing shortfalls in public services. Such assumptions distract attention away from the need to direct time and resources toward improving the public sector. In addition, Radhakrishnan argues that Tech for Good interventions in Global South contexts push the importance of investment in capital in the form of digital technology, while devaluing the idea of investing in workforces and improved working conditions.

In all these ways, then, the idea of 'Tech for Good' should not be seen simply as a benign addition to existing efforts to improve society, but as an appeal to fundamentally change the nature of what gets done and who is doing it. In particular, the...