Post
The Evolution of Technology: From Wonder to Commodity
The early stages of technological innovation often evoke a sense of wonder, a feeling that what’s being created is almost magical. It’s a shared sentiment, an excitement that captures both the imagination of the public and the ambition of inventors. This magic is seen in the early days of most technological advancements—personal computing, the internet, mobile phones, social media. There’s a raw potential that feels liberating, capable of transforming how we live, think, and communicate. And yet, as technology matures, something happens. That sense of wonder fades, often replaced by a more calculated and, in some cases, troubling reality.
This pattern of enchantment followed by disillusionment is not new. In fact, it is a recurrent theme in the history of technology. Whether it’s steam engines or smartphones, the progression often looks the same. The technology that once promised to free us, to elevate our human potential, somehow becomes entangled with the more mundane, sometimes sinister, forces of profit, power, and control. This shift, from magic to a tool of corporate and institutional interests, is both fascinating and concerning. It is a story of how technology, in all its promise, gets co-opted, tamed, and turned into something far less enchanting—and far more dangerous.
The Magic of Early Innovation
When new technologies first emerge, they often seem boundless in their potential. Think back to the dawn of the personal computer in the 1970s. For many, this innovation represented freedom—an ability to escape the confines of centralized mainframes and institutional control. It gave individuals access to computing power that was once reserved for large corporations and governments. Similarly, the rise of the internet in the 1990s promised an open world where information could flow freely, bypassing traditional gatekeepers like publishers and broadcast networks.
Social media, when it first appeared, felt revolutionary as well. The idea that anyone could broadcast their thoughts, ideas, and creativity to a global audience was nothing short of magical. Early platforms like MySpace and later Facebook offered a kind of digital freedom—a space where people could connect, share, and express themselves in ways that had never been possible before.
This early magic is a combination of novelty, accessibility, and the sense that this new tool can fundamentally change the world for the better. People see in these innovations the possibility of democratization, the spread of knowledge, and the empowerment of individuals over larger, more entrenched systems. And for a time, this potential is real. The initial wave of users is often drawn to these technologies because they are exciting, different, and filled with possibility. They have not yet been molded by market forces or the demands of shareholders (Castells, 2000).
The Turning Point: When Profit Takes the Lead
As these technologies gain traction, however, something shifts. The creators of these tools, often idealistic and visionary in the beginning, face the reality that to scale, they need money. Investment is required, and with it comes a need for profit. Suddenly, the technology that was once about freedom and empowerment starts to be shaped by different forces—those of the market.
Take the example of social media platforms. Initially, they offered a space for individuals to connect in meaningful ways. But as these platforms grew, their business models shifted. Instead of focusing on the user, the focus turned to advertisers. Users were no longer the customer—they became the product. Their data, behaviors, and preferences were mined and sold to corporations who wanted to target them with ads. The social media platform, which once felt like a public square, turned into a marketplace where everything, including user attention, was for sale.
The same can be said for search engines, streaming platforms, and even e-commerce sites. What begins as a service or tool designed to improve the user’s life slowly morphs into something designed to maximize profit. Algorithms, once hailed as neutral tools to help users find what they need or connect with others, are optimized for engagement, ad revenue, and other corporate interests. The magic fades, replaced by a sense of being manipulated, controlled, and commodified.
The Loss of Control
One of the most profound shifts that happens during this process is the loss of control. In the early days of a new technology, users often feel empowered. They are the ones in control, using this new tool to shape their lives in ways that feel meaningful and personal. But as these technologies mature and become more intertwined with corporate interests, users increasingly lose that sense of agency.
Consider how social media algorithms now control what we see and don’t see. Initially, users curated their own experiences by choosing who to follow and what to engage with. Now, these platforms use complex algorithms to decide for us, prioritizing content that will keep us on the platform longer, even if it’s not necessarily what we want or need. Similarly, recommendation algorithms on e-commerce and streaming platforms subtly shape our choices, nudging us toward products and content that serve the platform’s interests rather than our own.
This shift is often subtle, almost imperceptible at first. But over time, it becomes clear that the technology, once a tool for empowerment, has become a system of control. Users are funneled into specific behaviors, choices, and interactions that serve the platform’s goals, not their own. What was once magic has become something much less inspiring (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock, 2014).
The Commodification of Data
At the heart of this transformation is data. In the digital age, data is the most valuable commodity. Every interaction, click, and search generates data, which is then analyzed, sold, and used to shape user experiences in ways that maximize profit. While this data can be used to improve user experiences in some ways, more often, it is used to drive engagement, advertising revenue, and consumer spending.
The commodification of data raises profound ethical questions. Who owns the data we generate? How should it be used? And who benefits from it? In most cases, the answer is clear: corporations own and profit from the data, while users receive only marginal benefits. The promise of personalization, which was once seen as a positive feature, now feels more like surveillance. Users are not just engaging with technology; they are being watched, analyzed, and influenced in ways they may not even realize (Van Dijck, 2014).
Corporate Interests and Innovation
Another consequence of this shift from magic to market-driven technology is the way it stifles innovation. In the early stages of technological development, there is a sense of boundless creativity. Developers and users alike see the potential for new tools, new ways of interacting with the world. But as corporate interests take over, innovation often takes a back seat to profit.
This is particularly evident in the way platforms and technologies evolve—or fail to evolve—over time. Once a platform reaches a certain scale, its primary goal is often to maintain and grow its user base, rather than to innovate. New features are added not to improve the user experience but to increase engagement and ad revenue. Innovation becomes less about pushing the boundaries of what technology can do and more about optimizing what already exists for corporate gain.
Moreover, the consolidation of technology companies further hampers innovation. As a handful of companies dominate the tech landscape, they have little incentive to disrupt the status quo. Smaller, more innovative companies are often bought out, their technology absorbed into the larger corporate machine. The result is a tech landscape that is less dynamic, less creative, and less responsive to the needs of users (Zuboff, 2019).
The Path Forward: Can We Reclaim the Magic?
The question, then, is whether we can reclaim the magic of technology. Is it possible to create technologies that serve the public good, rather than corporate interests? Can we build systems that empower users rather than control them?
Some argue that regulation is the answer. Governments can and should play a role in ensuring that technology serves the public interest, protecting users from exploitation and ensuring that data is used ethically. Others believe that the solution lies in the creation of alternative, decentralized technologies that are not beholden to corporate interests (Srnicek, 2017).
Ultimately, the answer may lie in a combination of these approaches. What is clear is that if we want to reclaim the magic of technology, we need to rethink the systems that govern it. We need to prioritize people over profit, and innovation over optimization. Only then can we rediscover the sense of wonder that comes from using technology to improve our lives, rather than being used by it.
References
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism, and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
This pattern of enchantment followed by disillusionment is not new. In fact, it is a recurrent theme in the history of technology. Whether it’s steam engines or smartphones, the progression often looks the same. The technology that once promised to free us, to elevate our human potential, somehow becomes entangled with the more mundane, sometimes sinister, forces of profit, power, and control. This shift, from magic to a tool of corporate and institutional interests, is both fascinating and concerning. It is a story of how technology, in all its promise, gets co-opted, tamed, and turned into something far less enchanting—and far more dangerous.
The Magic of Early Innovation
When new technologies first emerge, they often seem boundless in their potential. Think back to the dawn of the personal computer in the 1970s. For many, this innovation represented freedom—an ability to escape the confines of centralized mainframes and institutional control. It gave individuals access to computing power that was once reserved for large corporations and governments. Similarly, the rise of the internet in the 1990s promised an open world where information could flow freely, bypassing traditional gatekeepers like publishers and broadcast networks.
Social media, when it first appeared, felt revolutionary as well. The idea that anyone could broadcast their thoughts, ideas, and creativity to a global audience was nothing short of magical. Early platforms like MySpace and later Facebook offered a kind of digital freedom—a space where people could connect, share, and express themselves in ways that had never been possible before.
This early magic is a combination of novelty, accessibility, and the sense that this new tool can fundamentally change the world for the better. People see in these innovations the possibility of democratization, the spread of knowledge, and the empowerment of individuals over larger, more entrenched systems. And for a time, this potential is real. The initial wave of users is often drawn to these technologies because they are exciting, different, and filled with possibility. They have not yet been molded by market forces or the demands of shareholders (Castells, 2000).
The Turning Point: When Profit Takes the Lead
As these technologies gain traction, however, something shifts. The creators of these tools, often idealistic and visionary in the beginning, face the reality that to scale, they need money. Investment is required, and with it comes a need for profit. Suddenly, the technology that was once about freedom and empowerment starts to be shaped by different forces—those of the market.
Take the example of social media platforms. Initially, they offered a space for individuals to connect in meaningful ways. But as these platforms grew, their business models shifted. Instead of focusing on the user, the focus turned to advertisers. Users were no longer the customer—they became the product. Their data, behaviors, and preferences were mined and sold to corporations who wanted to target them with ads. The social media platform, which once felt like a public square, turned into a marketplace where everything, including user attention, was for sale.
The same can be said for search engines, streaming platforms, and even e-commerce sites. What begins as a service or tool designed to improve the user’s life slowly morphs into something designed to maximize profit. Algorithms, once hailed as neutral tools to help users find what they need or connect with others, are optimized for engagement, ad revenue, and other corporate interests. The magic fades, replaced by a sense of being manipulated, controlled, and commodified.
The Loss of Control
One of the most profound shifts that happens during this process is the loss of control. In the early days of a new technology, users often feel empowered. They are the ones in control, using this new tool to shape their lives in ways that feel meaningful and personal. But as these technologies mature and become more intertwined with corporate interests, users increasingly lose that sense of agency.
Consider how social media algorithms now control what we see and don’t see. Initially, users curated their own experiences by choosing who to follow and what to engage with. Now, these platforms use complex algorithms to decide for us, prioritizing content that will keep us on the platform longer, even if it’s not necessarily what we want or need. Similarly, recommendation algorithms on e-commerce and streaming platforms subtly shape our choices, nudging us toward products and content that serve the platform’s interests rather than our own.
This shift is often subtle, almost imperceptible at first. But over time, it becomes clear that the technology, once a tool for empowerment, has become a system of control. Users are funneled into specific behaviors, choices, and interactions that serve the platform’s goals, not their own. What was once magic has become something much less inspiring (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock, 2014).
The Commodification of Data
At the heart of this transformation is data. In the digital age, data is the most valuable commodity. Every interaction, click, and search generates data, which is then analyzed, sold, and used to shape user experiences in ways that maximize profit. While this data can be used to improve user experiences in some ways, more often, it is used to drive engagement, advertising revenue, and consumer spending.
The commodification of data raises profound ethical questions. Who owns the data we generate? How should it be used? And who benefits from it? In most cases, the answer is clear: corporations own and profit from the data, while users receive only marginal benefits. The promise of personalization, which was once seen as a positive feature, now feels more like surveillance. Users are not just engaging with technology; they are being watched, analyzed, and influenced in ways they may not even realize (Van Dijck, 2014).
Corporate Interests and Innovation
Another consequence of this shift from magic to market-driven technology is the way it stifles innovation. In the early stages of technological development, there is a sense of boundless creativity. Developers and users alike see the potential for new tools, new ways of interacting with the world. But as corporate interests take over, innovation often takes a back seat to profit.
This is particularly evident in the way platforms and technologies evolve—or fail to evolve—over time. Once a platform reaches a certain scale, its primary goal is often to maintain and grow its user base, rather than to innovate. New features are added not to improve the user experience but to increase engagement and ad revenue. Innovation becomes less about pushing the boundaries of what technology can do and more about optimizing what already exists for corporate gain.
Moreover, the consolidation of technology companies further hampers innovation. As a handful of companies dominate the tech landscape, they have little incentive to disrupt the status quo. Smaller, more innovative companies are often bought out, their technology absorbed into the larger corporate machine. The result is a tech landscape that is less dynamic, less creative, and less responsive to the needs of users (Zuboff, 2019).
The Path Forward: Can We Reclaim the Magic?
The question, then, is whether we can reclaim the magic of technology. Is it possible to create technologies that serve the public good, rather than corporate interests? Can we build systems that empower users rather than control them?
Some argue that regulation is the answer. Governments can and should play a role in ensuring that technology serves the public interest, protecting users from exploitation and ensuring that data is used ethically. Others believe that the solution lies in the creation of alternative, decentralized technologies that are not beholden to corporate interests (Srnicek, 2017).
Ultimately, the answer may lie in a combination of these approaches. What is clear is that if we want to reclaim the magic of technology, we need to rethink the systems that govern it. We need to prioritize people over profit, and innovation over optimization. Only then can we rediscover the sense of wonder that comes from using technology to improve our lives, rather than being used by it.
References
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism, and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Read more
2
1
0