贵补肠别产辞辞办鈥檚 has been seen by many as the company鈥檚 latest attempt at . The social media giant has been publicly attacked for creating an environment that and .
Yet it also represents an attempt to rebrand the growing power of tech monopolies to shape all areas of our lives through social expansion. It points to a troubling new era of 鈥溾�� 鈥� or 鈥渃apitalism on steroids鈥� as Forbes called it in 2000. It reflects a disturbing trend of massively expanding tech conglomerates and the dangerous privatisation of technological knowledge.
Rebranding tech monopolies
Technology is rapidly transforming our world 鈥� from instantaneous digital communication to AI decision-making to and . The driving force behind these changes has been private technology firms, whether global start-ups or famous . But this combination of massive corporate profits and exciting technological innovation is the biggest myth of 21st-century progress.
The truth is much more complicated. Huge technology firms such as Google and Facebook are increasingly for unethical data collection and the use of which encourage hateful beliefs and viral misinformation.
Their technology has also encouraged unjust labour practices including hi-tech digital surveillance to workers, as happened in Amazon warehouses, and facilitated such as Uber, which .
Longer term, the of rare earth metals and the massive amounts of energy required for are major contributors to climate change.
These problems point to the threat of capitalist where, according to theorist , the culture 鈥渟eeks its authorisation in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology鈥�. Microsoft and Google have already been .
These 鈥溾�� are troubling 鈥渢echnopolies鈥� which actually use their power and influence to and using 鈥� ironically 鈥� traditional practices of the old economy.
Perhaps even more troubling is how these companies channel innovation away from its potential for social good. Beneath the myth of Silicon Valley prosperity are big tech鈥檚 seeming attempts to and even to extend their economic reach and political power.
The highly publicised renaming of these conglomerates is part of a wider rebranding of this technopoly. As one recently observed, 鈥湽蟛钩Ρ鸩谴前焘�檚 new name is 鈥楳eta鈥�, and its new mission is to invent a 鈥樷�� that will make us all forget what it鈥檚 done to our existing reality.鈥� It may be a different name, but it is the same economic, political and social corporate threat.
The spread of metacapitalism
In his video announcement, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed this dawning of the metaverse as signalling a new technological age, providing viewers with a glimpse of it in a where people could use avatars to live out their wildest imagination in real-time with others around the world.
The backlash has ranged from over Facebook itself, to Zuckerberg鈥檚 new vision for technology. What is overlooked is how this represents the desire to create metacapitalism 鈥� which uses technology to shape, and profit from human interaction. It is a completely marketised virtual reality world fuelled by the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, unjust global working conditions and the constant invasion of users鈥� data privacy for private financial gain.
Corporate and social rebranding are fundamental to the spread of metacapitalism. Google鈥檚 2015 to 鈥淎lphabet鈥� reflected its desire to be more than just a search engine and into other areas such as driverless cars, medical devices, smart home appliances and drone delivery. Introducing the metaverse, Zuckerberg :
Think about how many physical things you have today that could just be holograms in the future. Your TV, your perfect work set-up with multiple monitors, your board games and more 鈥� instead of physical things assembled in factories, they鈥檒l be holograms designed by creators around the world.
He insisted, once again, that 鈥渨e don鈥檛 build services to make money; we make money to build better services鈥�.
These moves play into a broader strategy to socially rebrand metacapitalism positively. The introduction of the metaverse is part of a new trend of what business ethics academic has referred to it as 鈥溾��, noting in a recent that 鈥減rogressive gestures from big business aren鈥檛 just useless 鈥� they鈥檙e dangerous鈥�.
Whether it is the Gates Foundation initially opposing the spread of global vaccines in order to patent rights, or Elon Musk promising to create an 鈥溾�� 鈥� while avoiding paying much-needed taxes here on Earth 鈥� corporations are now increasingly using philanthropy and utopian visions to hide their present day misdeeds.
A force for good
The irony is that technology could actually become a real for radical social and economic transformation if it was freed from the narrow limits imposed on it by metacapitalism.
Digital platforms are already enabling greater and . Big data could be deployed to allow for through better tracking of energy consumption. It also allows for the community ownership of our information and the economy generally. 3D printers have the to revolutionise manufacturing so that we can easily and sustainably produce all that we require.
Crucially, which allow for their information to be freely available to use, modify and redistribute, could foster international collaboration and innovation on a scale previously unimaginable. They point to a realistic and utopian 鈥溾�� future that could the need for exploitation based on principles of shared development and collective prosperity.
The rebranding of technology companies is not merely cosmetic, it represents a dangerous attempt to monopolise all forms of technology development linked to a metaverse and the spread of metacapitalism. What is needed instead is a real discussion about fostering open-source culture, data rights and ownership, and the use of technology for positive social transformation 鈥� not simply selling more products.
, Professor of Management,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
