Main Edition
US
FR
September 27, 2024 - 10:00am
In a vintage case of the censoriousness for which Keir Starmer’s government is already unhappily notorious, Labour has opted — after a fashion — to cancel Elon Musk for mean tweets. Unfortunately for the Labour PM, he may have done so just at the moment the titans of Silicon Valley begin tilting away in earnest from the kind of progressive consensus most congenial to Starmerism.
Following his less than complimentary comments on Labour’s handling of Britain’s summer riots, Musk has not been invited to the UK’s International Investment Summit, which takes place next month. He hit back on X, stating that “I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts.”
To my knowledge, no paedophiles were actually released to accommodate the dissident boomers of Facebook, though at least one was reportedly not jailed due to prisons being full. Starmer may well take the view that there is no need to attract Silicon Valley finance to the UK, and he may not care what Musk thinks. But if he is banking on Musk being an outlier, and the rest of Big Tech aligning ideologically with Labour’s political instincts, he could be in for a surprise: his blackballing of the outspoken and often provocative X owner comes amid a now-noticeable cooling in relations between progressive consensus and the American tech sector.
Ever since their alliance became entrenched under Barack Obama, Big Tech and Left-liberalism have seemed naturally aligned. This extended even to a revolving-door relation between liberal British politicians and Silicon Valley, as with the seamless transition of former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg from UK Government also-ran to an arguably far more powerful and influential role as President of Global Affairs for Meta. While there, he enforced a broadly progressive and sometimes palpably pro-censorship programme, including deplatforming Donald Trump in 2020 and cooperating with governments to censor “Covid misinformation”.
Arguably, though, Big Tech was never really Left-wing. The ethos of Silicon Valley has always been more libertarian than Leftist; the two only aligned to the extent that Leftism seemed to be about liberating people from constraints. But so long as profits were left to flow unopposed, Big Tech had seemed willing to swallow a measure of libertarian principle on progressive censorship.
But then Joe Biden turned on Big Tech. He set about breaking up monopolies, seeking to protect users’ data security, and constraining AI research; in the wake of this turn, Silicon Valley’s support for progressive ideology more broadly has grown palpably thinner. In a recent episode of their “Little Tech” YouTube show, for example, billionaire investors Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz explained why they support Trump. In their view, the Biden regime is waging all-out war on tech, via a hostile tax regime and laws constraining the nascent crypto, AI, and biotech industries, whereas Trump had signalled a more positive attitude.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOr you could argue that the Big Tech rightwards shift vibe is part of a much larger but fuzzy ‘populist’ surge. Perhaps the po-faced antilibertarians have overplayed their hand(s) and people are reacting against the ‘one size will fit all’ vibe?
The latest polling distraction shows Trump up by two. That means he is up by eight.
Keep repeating that to yourself dude.
*Also, I see a lead of between 2 and 7 points for Harris across several national polls—though not in electoral college pathways, which may slightly favor Trump at this moment.
Did you just poll your neighbors in Margaritaville or Branson, Missouri?
Back in the day polling results were reported with a “margin of error” (eg + or – 4 points). It allowed us to see how inconsequential these results actually were.
Something tells me such margins still exist, but they’re just swept under the rug. Just one more way we’re all being played.
The term “margin of error” is still routinely used. Sometimes it’s in the fine print, but often it’s made pretty plain. I’d just like to know which national poll shows Trump with any lead at all, however reliably or unreliably.
Big capital want the government to back off with regulations but also needs the government for investments, crony deals, regulations that do benefit them and loose monetary policy. Big tech is certainly no exception. So whatever CEOs may believe personally, in the end many of these big companies are probably simply opportunistic. They have to be.
Ted Cruz and the WSJ exposed Zuckerberg for what he is.
But so long as profits were left to flow unopposed, Big Tech had seemed willing to swallow a measure of libertarian principle on progressive censorship.
These tech geeks are not committed to libertarian principles, but take advantage of liberty when it suits them. The very strong pushback against DEI now rolling across the US has changed the direction of the wind, and the direction these swallows now fly. Don’t count on them to be with us the next time our liberty is at risk.
out and proud Right-libertarians
All we need are a flag and our own month
Isn’t it just the yellow ‘Don’t tread on me’ flag with the snake on it?
DEI is the only growth enterprise in the U.K. Any push against it from anywhere is welcome. The sooner Nandy, Reeves, Rayner, Wes and the Tool et al are floundering in the Thames the better……please, soon.
Didn’t they just sink Britain’s only tech entrepreneur in his yacht in the Med?
For sure. Them and of course the FBI, NSA, CIA…….and HP
I do wish that those seeking more freedom of speech, of expression,and less statist interference were not referred to as ” rightist”? As I keep reminding people, remember who the National Socialist were? Eric Blair reminded us post his involvement in the Spanish Civil War…
Referring to such people as rightist is telling though, isn’t it? One-time liberal values are no longer associated with the left.
I may have misunderstood what you’re saying, but this seems backwards.
Right wing politics does come various forms but the one big thing those forms all have in common is limited government. Or to use your words, “freedom of speech, of expression,and less statist interference”. The first two of these three things could arguably be values equally supported on the Left, but once you add the third, the Left is out of the game: it’s right-wing.
What is the problem with describing these values as right-wing?
Outside of Elon, who has always been a bit of an outlier, the others reflect more self-interest than principle. And that’s okay so far as it goes. They have businesses and investments to protect, so what’s a little bowing and scraping to the demands of the state, right? I’m sure Zuck felt the heavy hand of govt on his shoulder, but unless he also felt a gun in his back, there was always the option of saying ‘no.’
That the option was not exercised hints at a few possibilities. 1) Zuck and others like him did not care who was targeted so long as it wasn’t them. 2) The threats to anyone not going along with the censorship program were not vague implications; they were outright statements. 3) The suspicion that govt’s fingerprints are all over multiple tech companies and the appearance of completely independent businesses is a charade.
One could surmise that a lot of eyes finally opened and tech people finally figured out that alienating and attacking half the country on behalf of a particular administration was lousy business. But whatever it is, it’s not libertarian sentiment. There is no bridging libertarianism with even a hint of statism; the two are incompatible at a core level.
Not if you pretend to or insist on ideological purity, or peer through the prism of a single “ism”. But in the muddier and bloodier fields of embodied reality, of course there can be state involvement and state services alongside some form of libertarian beliefs and practices. By assigning a the suffix -ism to something, we tend to make it a pathology to ourselves and those we are trying to address—unless it really appeals to our own sensibilities.
In my case, I’m susceptible to the general import of humanism and traditionalism, for example, but the words “humanity” and “tradition” (with plenty of qualifications and exceptions) still sound better to me. I like much of libertarianism when it is advanced by people who truly aspire to liberate, as I read them, like John Stuart Mill. It’s one thing to oppose liberals—a common and defensible stance—another to be avowedly illiberal, let alone an adherent to illiberalism.
Some legit libertarians still want publicly funded highways, schools, hospitals, and prisons. Or at least some availability of essential services not under private ownership and control. And some laws that are enforced, whether a given individual consents to them or not.
Otherwise you invite a (bigger) flood of rampant capital into matters of life and death, and flirt with a right-of-center anarchism that is damn close to its left-wing counterpart at the other end of the extreme-ism horseshoe.
If you have the time and patience, I’d like to hear your view of the key difference(s) between having any kind of a state government and succumbing to statism.
I’d like to hear your view of the key difference(s) between having any kind of a state government and succumbing to statism.
The presence of govt in a free society serves two purposes: 1) whether it’s called law and order or the maintenance of social cohesion, govt serves to maintain the social order, with emphasis on ‘serves.’ This means that people in the public arena understand that they work for us, not the other way around. Too many insiders have lost sight of that, often looking at citizens as inconvenient obstacles to their grand schemes.
2) Govt does certain things that are too unwieldy to do privately: national defense, police and fire protection, roads and bridges, schools, and perhaps a few other things. Making public safety, for example, a purely private function would mean the people in greatest need of law enforcement protection would be the least likely to have it. This aspect of govt relies on the idea that we as a society pool our resources toward paying for things that impact everyone.
The threat of statism arises with has been the second major change in the relationship between govt and governed that has occurred in my lifetime, the first being where govt people believe we work for them. This part stems from way too many people reflexively believing that every issue, problem, or concern requires a govt intervention, whether govt is equipped to address it or nor.
The more people demand of govt – in other words, the more power they willingly hand over to politicians and bureaucrats – the more intrusive and powerful the state becomes. It’s happening today, with energy, food, and accommodation under the guise of addressing climate change and the policing of words and social media posts to keep people “safe” from thoughts. If someone told you 15 years ago that these would come to pass, you’d likely have thought them mad.
Govt was never meant to be the end-all, be-all. Just as no one would ask a carmaker to go into food production or a tech company to supply energy, govt’s expertise is also limited to a few things. I’d settle for those things being done at just an adequate level, so that the taxpayer (or consumer) can say he’s getting his money’s worth from taxes paid.
I just love these comments. Agree or not, it raises the level of debate so far above the msm level, they’d get neck strain looking up at it.
Thanks for the explanation. I’m in primary agreement with much of that. There is an entitled or taker mentality among many career government office holders, as there is among many police and corporate officers. But I’d need more evidence to conclude that the shift has led to a majority—in any party or most corporations or most police forces—that do not see themselves as public servants (or “trustholders”) at some level. Even a thoroughly libertarian model relies on robust level of voluntary service and mutual concern for others, among most people, to work well at all, it would seem. I think that a classically-conservative sharp pessimism about human nature clashes with libertarianism about as fundamentally as statism as you’ve defined it does.
I agree that government must be much more accountable and public-minded than it currently is on average.
I’m quite skeptical of your claim the that tide has shifted so decisively toward selfish government in your own lifetime. Since Reagan? Since FDR? The FBI has been trailing people for over a century, Lenny Bruce was prosecuted for naughty words in the 60s, and both MLK and John Lennon were trailed for their influential, aspirational views about society. McCarthy was a major on-the-take phony and so was Huey Long. Plenty such people can be found since the founding of the Republic, though rarely as well known as a Benedict Arnold.
I admit that public comments by “anonymous” posters are likelier to bring backlash or prosecution these days—especially in the UK I guess—but that has a lot to do with the exponentially larger audience an average Joe might find on the internet. Who could have imagined this level of widespread, instantaneous fame/notoriety 15 (or certainly 25) years ago? I’m not saying that such petty policing isn’t an injustice, nor that it is exactly the same as what has prevailed during our own, or parents’ and grandparents’ lifetime.
Prosecutions for treason and sedition and heresy across centuries and even millennia point to a human social condition in which freedom of expression is both dearly bought and hard to keep for long. What you say in a tavern has always run a risk of getting you swung on (or worse) and what you say at work of getting you fired (unless you’re the boss). That said, for many decades there was a more tolerant and dynamic atmosphere at American universities in particular, and I hope we’re seeing the first ripples of a rising corrective tide against stagnant shallows of conformity, suppression, and self-censorship in academia.
The more general decline I see in the America of my 53-year lifetime is in civic-mindedness: duty to one’s neighbors, town, state, and nation. Not that it was too robust in the Carter, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton years! We held together under the pressure of WWII, but I guess we kind of fell apart on a different level during the awful, long failure of the Vietnam War.
I personally think that many of the upheavals of the 1960s had to happen: freedom of expression and true equality were not available enough to many Americans who were non-white, female, or poor. To some extent it still isn’t. But the animosity generated from 1965-1974 is still with us to an extent, and now it is badly inflamed again. Also, right now white males like us (an assumption, forgive me if I’m wrong) are getting a big bitter taste of unfair treatment based on appearance or outward characteristics that we haven’t previously, not in our lifetimes. I call it “corrective injustice” and I think it’s both morally wrong and contrary to societal betterment. (Most of my ancestors were Irish and Catholic so they experienced some bigotry, for example, but not much since WWII or even earlier I’d say).
I’ll end by reiterating my claim that free speech has always carried a cost and a responsibility and a need for vigorous defense. Free speech for me and for thee—and for every two-bit Loudmouth McGee that can keep his hands and guns to himself. An ethic of love and respect for neighbors, including—no, especially—those ones, and for everyone we meet, unless they just about force us to adopt a harder stance. Much more easily said than done, I know, and I’m not saying I live this yet, especially on certain days. But even with a level of government that somehow matched our ideal as individuals, we would still need to see and treat each other much better than we’re doing now, generally speaking.
Sorry to bang on so long. I appreciate the good-faith engagement.
When you see a phrase like “embodied reality” you know a word salad is on the way.
Hope you enjoyed it. There’s plenty of protein there if you can stomach it. It also references an earlier exchange you didn’t see or care to read.
What do you think I anticipate when I see your handle? Ok, I’ll tell you, since you asked: either sneering insults or fawning agreement, along predictable tribal lines.
I agree, mostly. Highly successful business people have political beliefs just the same as everyone else. Some of them may also have religious convictions, but they would not permit those religious convictions to constrain how they do business. The same is true for politics: business pragmatism overrules political principles every time, and that’s how it should be.
The forced censorship at Facebook was minor, and is being blown out of proportion. The idea that there is a big “censorship industrial complex” comes from a few Biden administration officials who did throw their weight around during the pandemic, but they are gone now and things have reverted to normal. As the Supreme Court found in Murthy v. Missouri, there is no need to rein the government in to protect freedom of speech.
Censorship does take place, but it doesn’t come from the government. Most of it is helpful, of the kind that UnHerd practices here. Mark Zuckerberg and his minions do occasionally go overboard, but it’s not due to government pressure. It’s their choice.
I’m fine with big tech hating us. I’m sure most of us hate them.
I live in Silicon Valley, at the corner of Gentrified and Homeless, and my first impulse was to upvote you, which I did.
But I’m not really fine with that for this reason: Their sneering disregard for their own consumers gets carried around in our pockets, and exerts a non-benign, algorithmic influence on adults and children alike. When we reflexively hate or celebrate Tech Bros Incorporated, we fail do the work of watching them watch us (if you will) and of demanding more responsibility and community involvement from Big Tech concerns, from in-pocket platforms to looming Artificial Intelligence “solutions” (medicine, public works, etc.) that have already landed in an early form.
I guess we’ll have to save ourselves for now if we can, one man, woman, or child at a time. All this convenience and utility has been purchased too carelessly, and at too dear a price.
Billionaires who created their vast empires on a foundation of open source software written in the 1980s and 1990s by thousands of idealistic, unpaid, developers.
Let’s give the tech lords the benefit of the doubt. The politicians and activists have the guns and the money, as in printing it. So business has to figure out how to navigate between the rocks. An it all depends on the tide and the weather.
Starmer looks like he came out of a toy box with a mind to match. People on the left confuse boring with adulthood.
U.S. corporations, especially in tech, have always been “allowed” to “innovate” — but only under the cozy blanket of national security. Because, let’s face it, who doesn’t love progress when it’s fueling the next batch of high-tech weapons, right? This set up a pretty toxic marriage between the tech nerds and the state. The tech bros are happy rolling in money from their gadgets of destruction, while the government plays cowboy on the global stage.
Meanwhile, the rest of the population, left starving for scraps after their jobs were shipped overseas, slowly starts to realize the heat, trapped in this unholy alliance between Big Tech (corp) and Big Government. And wouldn’t you know it, something like populism starts bubbling up.
Just when things get messy at home, the country looks outward, and surprise, surprise — here comes China, ready to play. The Chinese figured out that tech and government are just two sides of the same coin — one comes up with the ideas, the other provides protection. So, they build cities, bridges, and of course, more weapons. They’ve cracked the code. It’s a winning combo, right? Call it what you will, but they’re making it work.
But America? Not quite there yet. They’re still stuck in an identity crisis: do we want to be the world’s police or the innovators? The state votes for police, while the tech bros are all about innovation. It’s a messy divorce in the making. The tech bros, already filthy rich, are over the money — they’ve got Mars on their minds. Who needs war when you can chase childhood dreams of space exploration? The state, on the other hand, couldn’t care less. They just want the weapons. Creating weapons kills creativity!
Now, the decision falls to the poor masses. Do they push for a system that “gets things done” like China — but, you know, not exactly like China, but sort of like China (just without the China part)? If they go that route, there’s no need for weapons anymore. After all, everyone’s got nukes. Why not skip the war and just compete to see who gets to Saturn first?
Stay tuned for the second half of this story — coming right after the November election (-:
Happy to have read from beginning to end! Thanks Mary H