{"id":521,"date":"2025-12-25T21:29:23","date_gmt":"2025-12-25T19:29:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/notes.yadin.com\/?p=521"},"modified":"2026-04-02T18:03:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T15:03:33","slug":"broken-dreams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yadin.com\/notes\/broken-dreams\/","title":{"rendered":"Broken Dreams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

“For of all sad words of tongue or pen, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!'”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u2015John Greenleaf Whittier, Maud Muller<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In previous parts of this series, we explored the foundations of cyber-utopianism (Great Expectations<\/a><\/em>) and how the expectation that the Internet would decentralize social power remains unfulfilled (Filtered Information<\/a><\/em>). The Information Revolution was expected to transform geopolitics, promoting equality, globalization, and democracy, and ultimately leading to world peace. Thirty years later, that vision appears naive and far-fetched, almost laughable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

About a third of the world\u2019s population remains without reliable access to the Internet, creating a digital divide that widens global social gaps<\/a>. Most of these are people from developing countries, rural areas, or low-income backgrounds. Disparities in digital literacy, stemming from limited access to education and training, further limit meaningful online engagement. The digital divide persists as a direct result of the rise of technology giants that we explored in a previous post in the series (Giants Rise<\/a>)<\/em>. These digital monopolies produce devices, software, and services that come with relatively high price tags and intentionally limited lifespans, as frequent upgrades make older devices incompatible with new software<\/a>; they prioritize wealthy, urban areas and underserve markets that are deemed less profitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, technology tycoons and the corporations they control have amassed incredible wealth, concentrated at the top. We also discussed this in a previous post in the series (Tech Oligarchs<\/a><\/em>). A new influential elite class of wealthy stock-based compensated technology executives and technology investors associated with the technology giants has emerged. The barriers to entry into this social class are steadily becoming higher. Networking opportunities are limited to insiders; access to elite education and training is becoming more limited and costly; and the cost of living in urban technology hubs is rising. Some technology giants have built enormous closed-off headquarters and campuses\u2014monuments of power and detachment<\/a>. These technology millionaires and billionaires have the resources and ability to avoid taxation and influence government policy in their favor, further widening the economic and social gap between the technology elite and the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Corporate headquarters of Apple in California (image: Daniel L. Lu<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thirty years of accelerated information technology development did not bring worthwhile citizen empowerment or global social equality. What about democracy? Unfortunately, global democracy is in continuous decline. The Economist Intelligence Unit evaluates the state of democracy<\/a> across 167 countries, assessing factors such as electoral processes, civil liberties, government functionality, political participation, and political culture. The United States non-governmental organization Freedom House measures political rights and civil liberties<\/a> in 210 countries and territories. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) evaluates various aspects of democracy<\/a>, including representative government, fundamental rights, checks on government, impartial administration, and participatory engagement in 174 countries. All three organizations report a consistent erosion of global democracy over the past two decades. A fourth initiative, the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, run by the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, describes the 2010s and 2020s as a period of \u201cautocratization,\u201d where even established democracies have seen declines in press freedom, judicial independence, and electoral fairness. According to the 2024 V-Dem report<\/a>, 71% of the world\u2019s population lives under autocratic regimes, a sharp increase from 48% a decade ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only did the Information Revolution fail to promote global democracy, but the manner in which technology giants have shaped cyberspace over the last two decades has actually contributed to its decline<\/a>. Political dynamics worldwide are increasingly influenced<\/a> by social media-fueled conspiracy theories, polarization, distrust of democratic institutions, and misinformation. Moderate leaders are losing power to populist, nationalist politicians as public debate is degrading, and democratic values are diminishing, at least in part as a result of social media culture<\/a>. The dominance of social media has undermined traditional journalism, contributing to the decline in informed public discourse, accountability, and trust in democratic institutions. For many, especially young people<\/a>, frustration with populist partisan politics has led to apathy, declining civic engagement, and disillusionment with democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Perhaps most disappointing is the loss of the utopian dream of world peace through technological innovation. The Information Revolution did not bring global equality; instead, it contributed to the decline of democracy. The technology giants shaped cyberspace to maximize profit, empowering radicals and driving moderates away. It should not be surprising that, as a result, nationalism is rising worldwide, even in countries with long-standing liberal democratic traditions. Populist nationalist leaders successfully use the Internet to spread their message directly to the public, circumventing traditional media gatekeepers. The tools of the Information Revolution allow them to mobilize supporters, consolidate power, and shape political discourse. They pledge unity, purpose, and national renewal while fostering distrust of democratic institutions, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, and fueling polarization and radicalization. It is unlikely that nationalist politicians would have gained the same level of success and power without social media platforms<\/a> and other information technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rise of nationalism has contributed to conflict, tension, and global instability in the last two decades. Nationalist agendas often prioritize sovereignty, identity, and territorial integrity, which can fuel militarism, border disputes, and aggressive foreign policy. Additionally, populist nationalist agendas, especially in the United States and Europe, have weakened international organizations such as the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the United Nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Independence March in Poland (Photo by Dawid Ma\u0142ecki<\/a>, 2018)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The US non-profit Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) reports that global armed conflicts doubled<\/a> between 2020 and 2025, with 50 countries ranked as extreme, high, or turbulent in their conflict index. Especially noteworthy is the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which sparked one of Europe\u2019s most significant armed conflicts since World War II and the revival of East-West tensions. The invasion and the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea that preceded it were driven by Russian nationalism and a perceived weakness of international organizations. As of September 2024, more than one million people were injured or lost their lives in this conflict. The Russia-Ukraine war and other armed conflicts in the past two decades were not directly caused by the Information Revolution. However, the way public discourse is shaped by technology giants plays a significant role in maintaining global inequality, fueling the worldwide rise of nationalism, and contributing to the decline of liberal democracy, providing the backdrop for international conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utopian notions of a peaceful world where nationality is less important than online identity and national laws do not apply to cyberspace communities seem naive today. Online behavior, communication, and expression are not decentralized as some hoped, but are mediated and controlled by a handful of giant technology companies. As we have seen (in Giants Rise<\/a>)<\/em>, these companies are powerful enough to resist government intervention when they feel it goes against their business interests. However, most of the time, it is in their interest to maintain good working relationships with national governments and national institutions. They obey and enforce national laws, regulations, and court orders on their platforms and in their services. Through this cooperation, national governments retain their authority, and national institutions exercise their jurisdiction online. The hope that cyberspace, without borders and free from government intervention, would weaken national identities and bring people from different countries together remains unrealized, as national borders and laws persist online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cyber-utopians of the 1990s failed to anticipate that technology mega-corporations would consolidate power and shape the Internet\u2019s architecture in ways that undermine globalization and democracy. Sadly, the vision of a peaceful information society remains beyond reach. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n <\/svg>49\n |<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/svg>\n 1<\/span>\n <\/span>\n |<\/span>\n Published: Dec. 25, 2025\n |<\/span>\n Updated: Apr. 2, 2026 |<\/span> Topics: Future<\/a>, Markets<\/a> |<\/span> Follow<\/a>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Next in this series:<\/p>\n\n\n\n