Mapping the History of Technological Resistance: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Photo by Dave Weatherall on Unsplash

Technological resistance has taken many forms in the past century. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the digital age we live in today, there have always been people who are sceptical of the supposed positive impacts of new technologies. Whenever a new technology comes on the scene, a section of people always resist its implementation and advocate for a more critical view of technology. This resistance can take many forms, from simply destroying the technology to appropriating it to spread a message of collective good.

Why is this history important?

Today, many people worry about the prevalence of surveillance and persuasive technology. Surveillance Technology is the prevalence of tools that allow organisations to use precise data about our likes and dislikes to send targeted advertisements. Persuasive technology is how technology, particularly social media, is designed to keep us scrolling for as long as possible. Both of these forms of technology can have profoundly negative impacts on our lives, and so it is understandable that people want to do something about it. But, it is crucial to examine what forms of resistance are most effective — and why.

There is a predominant cultural belief that the digital is somehow different to other technological developments — the Other of the technological world. This is known as the concept of ‘Digital Exceptionalism’, which describes the idea that the internet and digital technologies are unique and distinct from other technologies. This belief has been shaped by the rapid pace of technological advancements that have enabled us to constantly connect and access vast amounts of information. Unsurprisingly, we see it as different when it has changed how we live and given us access to unprecedented amounts of data.

This also limits how we can resist and appropriate technology for social good, as it blinds us to many case studies of technological resistance throughout the 20th century. Studying these can help us forge a path focused on impact and methods we know will work. As someone who has spent some time around leftist spaces and talking to people of all political persuasions about what they think about social media, I can tell how much these historical perspectives are sorely needed.

Appropriation of radio for labour broadcasting

About a third of early broadcasters were non-profit (churches, universities, etc), and half were created by for-profit enterprises, not to generate profit but to show their enterprise in a favourable light.

However, by 1934, non-profit broadcasting accounted for only 2% of US broadcast time, leading non-profit broadcasters to become increasingly displaced & harassed and begin to form the beginnings of a broadcast reform movement. The leading group for this was the National Committee on Education by Radio, led by the National Education Association Joy Elmer Morgan.

“Private monopoly in industry is bad enough; monopoly in the agencies which control the distribution of ideas is even worse” — Joy Elmer Morgan, in a letter to Congress

The reform movement began to attract different types of people, including the ACLU, who were interested in free speech, censorship, and the prevalence of cheap entertainment of public affairs programming. The general themes of the broadcast reform movement followed four points:

• Airwaves are a shared resource, so broadcasting is a public utility.
• The broadcasting system would inevitably censor radical opinions to appeal to advertisers and keep the status quo.
• The nature of commercial broadcasting seriously limits cultural and educational programming.
• Calling for creating a public system of stations in conjunction with commercial stations.

The weakness of the broadcast reform movement lay in their inability to find a source of funding for non-profit stations outside of taxes — as this was unpopular with the American public at the time. This meant that broadcasters were able to overwhelm their efforts.

Vague regulations in the ‘Radio Act (1927)’ established the Federal Radio Commission temporarily to favour stations which ‘best served the public interest, convenience, or necessity). For the two years following this, the network-dominated radio as we know it today came into existence. The FRC was primarily staffed with people who were aligned with commercial radio, and this, along with other factors, made it increasingly difficult for non-profit stations found it increasingly challenging to remain on-air.

Despite the short-lived nature of the broadcast reform movement, this debate demonstrates how the current monopoly of commercial media is a relatively new invention — and how people have resisted it from the start. This narrative is not what we usually hear when we discuss the history of technology. Commercial domination is often seen as inevitable in these discussions. Despite the limitations of the broadcast reform movement, it illustrates a different account of technological development than we are used to hearing. New technologies can provide a powerful platform for people to have their voices heard — but this can only happen if governments regulate industries in the public interest.

Resisting the Television

When home television sets first became popular, many were uncertain if owning one was a good idea. This might seem unusual to us now, as having a TV in our homes is normal. However, the situation was quite different when it was a brand-new invention.

During the peak of the anti-television campaign, many critics compared television to drugs due to the perceived addictive nature of the medium. People found it incredibly difficult to ignore the TV when it was on, and many argued that it was detrimental to society. Some even went as far as to suggest that watching TV was a form of mind control and that those in power were using it to manipulate the population.

“When the set is on, I cannot ignore it. I can’t turn it off. I feel sapped, will-less, envenerated.” Marie Winn, The Plug In Drug, 1977

This probably sounds familiar — this is what many people say about social media nowadays. This is because of the attention economy.

Despite its prominence, the likening of TV addictive substances is neither accurate nor helpful. But, decades after this argument against TV was first popularised, we see the same ideas and moral panic pop up in social media discussions. There’s no proven link between mobile phone usage and addiction symptoms like withdrawal. Despite what some may say, there’s little evidence to suggest that your phone use is causing you to become addicted. Instead, far more evidence indicates that mobile phone usage is a habit.

Persuasive design techniques contribute to this habit's frequency, which can interfere with our ability to go about our lives, but it is essential to label it correctly. A term that I find particularly helpful is using the phrase “attachment” instead of “addiction.” For example: “My brother is quite attached to his phone and video games, so we are having some trouble getting him to study.”

Using reactions to the introduction of the TV as a case study, we can also see that this form of resistance doesn’t work. TV is more prominent now than ever. It is often difficult to see positive solutions when we fear new technology. This fear is a natural human emotion that various situations can trigger, but it is not a helpful emotion in most cases. When we give in to fear, we tend to worry excessively, which can ultimately lead to anxiety and stress.

The Early Internet

In the ‘90s, governments worldwide were peeing their pants with excitement over the so-called ‘information superhighway’ that would connect us all and allow unprecedented communication levels. This is what we now know as the ‘internet.’ What I was taught about the internet, as someone born in 2001, centred this narrative. The general ideas I was taught were:

1. Everyone loved it; it was great, and no one had any idea of the negative consequences that could occur today.
2. We shouldn't blame the creators of the digital age for the negative impacts.

As we have already discussed, this ideological support from the government is not uncommon regarding historical and technological development. But in the digital age, there are a few key differences: (1) Governments worldwide are now doing a 180 and expressing concern over the state of technology in society, and (2) The breakneck speed of technological development in the digital age puts the risks of the state of technology much higher.

A more in-depth analysis of the explosion of the internet in the 1990s reveals a more nuanced picture of the reaction to its introduction. There has always been resistance to the internet and criticisms of its structure in society. I discovered this movement by coming across a book titled ‘Resisting the Virtual Life,’ in a second-hand bookshop in Edinburgh, published in ’95. This essay collection is centred on whether the ‘information superhighway’ would benefit the many or only the few. This meant asking questions about potential negative impacts of the internet, such as its likelihood of being used as a workplace surveillance tool. Many of the answers the contributors explore are scarily accurate when we look at today's state of technology in society.

The essay collection explores the potential of the digital age to bring more surveillance into the workplace and argues that this could potentially result in violations of workers' rights. This prediction of using surveillance technology in the workplace has proven to be worryingly accurate. The development of the internet enabled an explosion in devices and tools that allow us to monitor every little thing we do. And employers jumped on this to ‘improve efficiency’ among their workers. This is far more prominent in blue-collar work, such as Amazon warehouses, which have been accused of violating workers' rights in recent years.

The Channel 4 Documentary “The Great Amazon Heist”, explored this in detail by sending someone undercover to expose how Amazon dodges taxes, exploits workers, and undertakes many other unsavoury schemes. The documentary opens with the presenter discovering discarded bottles of urine outside an Amazon warehouse due to the inability to take bathroom breaks. Throughout the documentary, the presenter paints a horrifying picture of how surveillance technology is used to control the every move of warehouse workers.

This early criticism of the internet also raised concerns over the breakneck speed of technological development in the digital age. This criticism highlighted how this development speed could make it challenging to regulate. This prediction was also frighteningly accurate, foreseeing what would happen in the proceeding decades. The lack of regulation of digital technology from the get-go allowed companies to ‘move fast and break things’ in the name of economic growth. This, of course, is because of neoliberalism. As my mother always says, ‘Everything is Thatcher’s fault.’ Governments are generally run democratically, which means much more red tape. Neoliberalism means technology companies don’t have much red tape. As early critics of the Internet pointed out, this difference in process means technology companies are tough to regulate because governments can’t keep up. This means technology companies aren’t accountable for the potential negative impacts of the technology they create, making it difficult to stop them.

Despite the numerous theories and evidence pointing towards the problems that digital technology has brought about today, people chose to ignore them. It was not a lack of awareness of the consequences but a failure to heed the warnings of those who had already sounded the alarm.

What Can We Learn?

So, a quick summary:

• The Luddites — broke things and didn’t work.
• Labour Radio Broadcasting — created and appropriated new stations for the collective good, which worked. But they got overrun by more powerful organisations with governmental backing.
• TV & Internet — created an individualised moral panic, but it didn't work.

Creating new forms of technology that follow the same structure as the dominant form of technology but are fairer and more ethical has proven highly effective. Radio stations, in particular, have served as a powerful platform for sharing new ideas and information from a left-wing perspective, which was previously difficult to achieve.

But why do people react in unhelpful ways? A lot of the time, it’s a defence mechanism. Historical studies of resistance to new forms of media identified that people of certain professions are more likely to believe media is harmful or destructive: teachers, religious figures, and health professionals are more likely to distrust new technology. All these professions involve caring for a community and ensuring the safety and well-being of others. This is a big responsibility, so these professionals need to make sure they are being super careful when considering what new technologies to make use of. Unfortunately, this, combined with an increasingly individualised society, deregulation, and the attention economy, can often lead to an individualised response that creates a moral panic and blames the individual. Rather than resorting to destruction and chaos, the key to creating a fairer technological landscape lies in creating innovative and ethical alternatives.

However, as we can see with the example of the radio, these efforts won’t last without regulation. Labour broadcasting died out precisely because it did not have regulatory or government support. In the attention age, a lot of focus on alternative technology is decentralisation and creating new platforms built on a thesis of collective good. This concept is called Web3. While it has benefits, it's important to note that regulation and policy support are necessary to function effectively. There are two main reasons for this:

1. Despite the lack of a central power structure, in Web3, issues such as misinformation and harassment of minorities will remain unaddressed without proper regulations in place.
2. Without regulations, larger and more financially capable platforms will inevitably dominate as the free market favours those with more power. This makes it difficult for new decentralized platforms to succeed without limitations on these platforms.

The history of media technology is a history of the creation of technologies designed to capture our attention and, as a result, make more money from us. However, we must recognize that we must do more than delete ourselves from the internet and throw out our TVs to solve the problem. Instead, we need to approach this collectively. An essential part is taking a step back and viewing technology from a broader societal perspective. This involves recognizing that persuasive technology is a symptom, not the root cause of the problem. Our economic system, which demands companies to make more money constantly, has created the attention economy.