The Appistocracy — A reaction
Customers are not subject
Kai Branch from Dense Discovery has some of the most thought provoking and thoughtful editorials online. Most of the time, I agree with the spirit but disagree with the details.
In Issue 329, Kai comments on The Appistocracy Inaugurates Trump by Ken Klippenstein. The post suggests there is “a new breed of elite,” so powerful and influential that “even megalomaniac Trump feels compelled to pay homage.”
The post refers in particular to Elon Musk (X), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook/Instagram), Tim Cook (Apple), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Shou Zi Chew (TikTok), who were all present at the presidential inauguration.
Misunderstanding technology
Ken writes:
Oligarchs are nothing new, but these six men have a power over us that is more intimate than other billionaires. They collectively build, run, and control what can only be likened to an appendage of our own human bodies, a new organ that most can’t imagine losing or losing access to.
I call them the Appistocracy.
The appendage of our own human bodies consists in the abstract conglomerate of smartphones, social media, and web-enabled services.
This is the first over simplification. All technology is an appendage to our bodies.
Ever since we learned to cook, we’ve been delegating part of our digestion to fire. We augment our skin with clothes that protect us from the freezing cold or scorching heat. Bicycles, cars, and other means of transportation are also appendages that allow us to cover large distances with little effort.
Smartphones and the internet are only the latest augmentation that enables our puny bodies to achieve more in the world. To paint them as “a new organ that most can’t imagine losing or losing access to,” is to simply observe our relationship with technology. It’s an unnecessary hyperbole. I bet you can’t imagine losing access to cooking, clothes, and transportation, either.
Misunderstanding impact
The first critique Ken makes of tech CEOs is that he believes the products they sell have negative effects on consumers.
The sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists are only just beginning to ponder the effects. Since the advent of the smartphone around 2012 or so, adolescent loneliness has skyrocketed, studies show.
This is a valid point and one that should not be overlooked.
However, like Vaden and Ben observed in their critique of The Anxious Generation—see latest Monday Dispatch— we ought to be very careful in adopting simplistic explanations that are based on correlation and observational studies. As Carl Sagan put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and, we should add, an extraordinarily good explanation.
Another criticism in the article is that the Appistocracy runs companies that do nothing to improve society.
The robber barons of yesteryear, the Carnegies, the Fords and so on, at least employed a lot of people. At least they manufactured something tangible and of use to people’s lives. The Appistocracy doesn’t do anything to improve health care, housing, or education. Their contribution to infrastructure amounts to building more energy facilities to power their data centers and fuel their artificial intelligence empires.
This is an overly simplified picture. And the premise on employing a lot of people is plain wrong.
Ken brings up Henry Ford, possibly the single largest industrial employer in the 1920s. In 1929, he had 174,126 people on the payroll. Amazon reports 1 million jobs "directly created in the US. Adjusting for total US population, Ford employed 0.14% of the US population. Meanwhile, Amazon employs 0.3% of the current US population. So, barring inaccuracies in my sources, it’s safe to say that Amazon alone employs twice as many people in proportion to the US population as Ford did. How’s that for impact?
But let’s leave aside the gross misunderstanding on employees and think in terms of second order effects. These companies enable a whole substrate of careers that were not possible before.
From edgy YouTube commentators to shallow Instagram influencers, from the manufacturers of iPhone cases to the advertisers that work with Facebook, so many people are earning a living on top of the so called Appistocracy.
I’d argue those jobs are way more empowering—people actually have ownership and get to be creative. Unlike, say, tightening bolts on a Ford assembly line or shoveling coal for Carnegie.
As for infrastructure, health, and education improvements, both the unprecedented number of people directly employed by and those that earn in the Appistocracy’s ecosystem, pay taxes. It’s up to the government to spend that money wisely to improve services and infrastructure. As a matter of fact, the contribution the Carnegies, Fords, and Rockefellers of the early 20th century made to society in terms of health and education came mostly from their private philanthropy, not directly from their companies.
You could say I’m being too charitable. After all, it’s the internet that powers this new economy. It’s possible that Meta and YouTube, with their walled gardens, could actually be stealing revenue from creators.
The point I’m trying to make is not in defense of tech companies, but in defense of sound reasoning. If we want to identify and correct errors in the current system, then the critique we brought forward need to be sharp and accurate.
Misunderstanding users’ agency
The jury might still be out on whether the overall contribution that Meta, Google, and the other big tech companies brought to society is net positive. But here’s something where there is no wiggle room: Ken denies users’ agency and in doing so demeans the readers.
Like jealous gods, these apps demand constant sacrifices: of our time, our attention, even our relationships.
Whenever I read sentences like those I am offended.
The implication is that most people—we the readers, users, and customers—are dumb targets, easily manipulated idiots. I feel treated like a mindless consumer with no choice or agency in how I interact with the digital world.
But no one forces you to open Instagram or to buy from Amazon. There is no law that requires posting on Facebook or sharing on TikTok. You can search the web without using Google or text your friends without using an iPhone.
We all have agency. Blaming the algorithms is a cheap excuse, a simplistic way to explain the complex state of our culture.
Apps might demand attention but they have no way to take it. They might try hard with their many shady tactics to keep us scrolling, but the quit button is always within reach.
Unlike the aristocracy of the past who was often in charge by force and inheritance and perpetrated a rigged system, Ken’s Appistocracy is “powerful” because people bought their products and used their services.
Most people buy iPhones because they are better and cooler than the competition. They use Amazon because it’s cheap, fast, and reliable. They watch YouTube because it’s more entertaining and personalized than television.
Ken himself is complicit in empowering the Appistocracy. His critique would land much more strongly if it came from a self-hosted site, distributed with an old-fashion newsletter provider and RSS feed. Instead, he posts on the platforms owned by the villains of his story.
If Ken is so concerned with the Appistocracy, I suggest he start by opting out from their services and find new ways to reach his audience. Then, he could make a compelling case for other people to do the same and start the chain reaction that will erode the influence these tech entrepreneurs have. If this sounds hard to do, it’s because it is. But as they say, “it’s not a principle if it doesn’t cost you something.”
For example, Kai hosts Dense Discovery with Krystal, a family-owned B Corp, running on 100% renewables, giving back 1% for the planet. He puts his money where his mouth is, and I respect him for that.
I have so much more to comment on this article: on the inevitability of wealth inequality, the difference between true oligarchs and entrepreneurs, on how one can’t help but wonder how much of this focus on billionaires is motivated by envy rather than concern, on the difference between CEOs and the companies they run, and how it was not Trump who paid homage but the other way around, but I’ll stop here.
I’ll leave you with Kai’s constructive conclusion:
Yet even as these digital dependencies deepen, so too does our capacity to question them – to carve out spaces of genuine presence in a world increasingly defined by algorithmic engagement.
As I said, Kai and I agree on the big picture even though the details vary.
The Appistocracy, to the extent to which it exists, may have influence over politicians but has no real power over our attention. We can always opt-out.