This is not another tech critique. This is an alarm bell.
We Thought Digital Was Freedom. Now We See What It Can Become.
In my article Digital Independence Day, I already argued that we must step back from platforms that “reward polarization” and pull us away from democratic dialogue. I wrote that digital spaces — once seen as open town squares — have instead become places that “decide who is heard and who is ignored.” (ux4dotcom.blogspot.com)
Cadwalladr goes even further: she describes a digital coup — not shouted with guns and tanks, but enacted through data, algorithms, and surveillance capitalism. (blog.ted.com) This isn’t dystopian hyperbole — it is an empirical diagnosis of how power has silently shifted away from people and into the hands of a few unregulated platforms and their architects.
This matters to us as UX practitioners because we design the very surfaces through which digital power reaches people.
From Attention Metrics to a Broligarchy of Influence
Cadwalladr’s warning centers on the rise of what she terms the broligarchy — a ruling class of tech executives whose platforms shape global information flows, often without transparency or accountability. (blog.ted.com) This isn’t simply a critique of wealth or even influence. It’s a critique of how those in control design the rules of engagement — what counts as truth, what gets amplified, what gets silenced.
We live daily with design choices that influence attention, mood, and action. In A UX Wake-Up Call — Designing for People vs Designing for Investors, I wrote about how metrics and monetization often win over human needs. (ux4dotcom.blogspot.com) But Cadwalladr’s talk makes it clear this is more than bad business — it’s about the structural threat to democracy and freedom - free world.
UX Designers Are Gatekeepers of Reality — Whether We Admit It or Not
Every animation, notification prompt, feed ranking, and onboarding screen is a micro-decision about what we value in the human experience. But when platforms optimize for engagement, not autonomy, they build economies of attention that shape beliefs before people even realize they are being influenced.
Cadwalladr reminds us that data is the new lever of power — “the crack cocaine of Silicon Valley.” The systems that harvest and predict behavior can be used for commerce, community, and creativity — or they can be turned toward manipulation and polarization.
Why This Matters Personally (and Professionally)
In From Technology to Its Impact on Mental Health, I wrote about how designs that mimic emotional connection can have profound psychological consequences — especially for vulnerable people — and how responsibility must extend beyond features to impact. (ux4dotcom.blogspot.com)
Now here, Cadwalladr’s talk expands that concern into the political life of societies. This is what happens when platforms are no longer just tools for communication but front-line actors in culture and power. (TED-Ed)
We must stop treating design as an isolated craft and start seeing it as inherently social, ethical, and political.
We Are Not Powerless — But We Must Act Like It
Cadwalladr doesn’t leave us hopeless. She argues that recognizing the problem is the first step, that individuals have untapped agency, and that digital disobedience — conscious choices about how and where we engage — matters.
This echoes what I have asked in my writing all year:
What if we design for human autonomy, not engagement loops?
What if we opt out of systems that harvest attention as raw material?
What if we build digital spaces that support democracy rather than distort it?
These are not small questions.
A Personal Commitment — and an Invitation
I have reflected on design responsibility in terms of experience and emotion. Now I see that we must also reflect on power and public life.
We must:
Demand transparency in algorithmic design.
Hold platforms accountable for their societal impacts.
Design with citizen agency at the center, not as an afterthought.
Just as I urged designers to pivot away from investor-driven metrics earlier this year, I now urge us all to pivot toward autonomy, clarity, and collective stewardship of the digital commons.
This is not merely a challenge. It is a human challenge — to ensure that the futures we build support freedom, understanding, and democracy.
“If you take one thing only away from this talk, it’s: politics is technology now.”
That means she’s saying politics and technology are no longer separate realms — they’ve become the same thing. In other words, technology now is politics (and vice-versa).
Comments
Post a Comment