Digital Luddites are rising. They want to democratise tech, not destroy it
- Written by: Raffaele F Ciriello, Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney
Have you ever been called a Luddite? We have – usually as an insult, rooted in a popular misconception[1] that Luddites are anti-progress fanatics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The original 19th century Luddites weren’t against technology. Rather, they resisted its oppressive use.
Their rebellion was violently suppressed. But their core critique lives on: technology should benefit all of humanity, not a privileged few.
Today, as Silicon Valley billionaires and United States president Donald Trump turbocharge[2] corporate control of public digital infrastructure[3], this critique rings truer than ever.
In response, we are a seeing a growing surge of attempts to wrest back control of technology for democratic ends. This is a kind of “digital Luddism” which echoes past struggles against high-tech injustice.
The original Luddites
The Luddites were 19th century English textile workers who destroyed machinery threatening their craft and livelihoods. Historians call their tactics “collective bargaining by riot[4]”. They were fighting against technologies that centralised power and stripped workers of dignity.
Luddite resistance was part of broader struggles for labour rights and socioeconomic justice.
For example, in 18th century France, silk weavers similarly revolted[5] against mechanisation that devalued their craft.
Earlier, England’s Diggers and Levellers[6] resisted the privatisation of communal lands. This foreshadowed today’s battles over corporate control of digital infrastructure.
The Luddites faced severe punishment, including imprisonment and even execution. Despite this, their legacy endures. Today, dismissing critics of Big Tech as “Luddites” repeats the mistake of conflating resistance to exploitation with fear of progress.
In the most extreme scenario, unchecked corporate power allied with monstrous government polices can lead to atrocities. In Nazi Germany, for example, Dehomag, a former subsidiary of computer giant IBM, provided data systems to the Nazis to track victims[8]. Chemical company IG Farben also supplied Zyklon B gas for extermination camps[9]. Many other companies profited from forced labour and funded the regime. This shows how complicity can make oppression more efficient.
Today, digital technologies are deepening inequality[10], eroding democracy[11], undermining privacy[12], and concentrating power[13].
Digital technologies are also fuelling surveillance capitalism[14], the displacement of human workers by AI algorithms[15] and the growth of monopolistic platforms[16].
Platforms and AI systems governed by “broligarchs” such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg[17] are also shaping politics, culture, and beliefs globally.
Digital Luddism, also known as neo-Luddism[18], tackles these issues through three strategies: resistance, removal and replacement.
Resistance: blocking harmful systems
Technology is not inevitable — it’s a choice. Sustained collective action can counter corporate dominance and align tech with democratic values.
In 2018, more than 3,000 Google workers protested[19] the company’s military AI contract, forcing it to adopt ethical guidelines. However, in February this year, Google expanded defence deals[20], showing how resistance must be sustained.
Three years later, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen exposed the harmful algorithms[21] at the heart of the social media platform.
Then, in 2024, Amazon and Google staff also staged walkouts[22] over a US$1.2 billion AI contract linked to Israeli military operations.
Creative industries are also fighting back. For example, in 2023 screenwriters and actors in Hollywood protested[23] against AI replacing their roles. Similarly, Australia’s “right to disconnect[24]” law reflects Luddite principles of reclaiming autonomy.
Non-profit organisations such as the Algorithmic Justice League[25] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation[26] empower digital rights advocates to take back control over digital spaces by exposing AI bias[27] and through legal litigation[28].
Digital Luddism doesn’t reject innovation. It demands technology serve stakeholders, not shareholders.
Removal: dismantling entrenched power
Some systems are beyond reform, requiring direct intervention. Removal involves political action and legal regulation. It also involves public pressure to break monopolies or impose penalties on unethical corporations.
For example, the TraffickingHub petition has garnered more than two million signatories[29] to hold adult website PornHub accountable for unethical or unlawful content. This has led financial institutions, such as Visa and Mastercard, to cut ties to the website[30]. For more than 20 years, hacker collective Anonymous[31] has carried out cyber-attacks on authoritarian regimes, extremists and corporations.
Digital Luddites can also lend a hand to the long arm of the law.
The European Union’s 2023 Digital Markets Act broke Apple’s app store monopoly[32]. This sparked a surge[33] in small EU developers.
Big Tech has also repeatedly faced huge fines[34] and antitrust lawsuits[35]. However, breaking up or nationalising these corporations remains rhetoric for now.
Replacement: building ethical alternatives
Proprietary corporate systems have long been challenged by free, open-source alternatives[36].
But digital Luddism isn’t just about using different tools. It’s about systemic change towards sustainable, transparent and user-controlled infrastructure.
After Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover, decentralised alternatives that let users control content flourished. For example, Bluesky[37] grew from 1 million to more than 27 million users[38] in one year.
The Australian government is also responding to a broader public demand for platform independence. For example, it has introduced policies aimed at enhancing people’s data rights[39]. Its Digital Transformation Agency is also advocating[40] for improved open data standards.
Open-source AI projects such as China’s DeepSeek[41] and HuggingFace’s Deep Research[42] now rival corporate models, proving open tech is a force to reckon with.
The original Luddites smashed machines. But the global nature of today’s digital infrastructure makes physical sabotage impractical. That’s why digital Luddism isn’t about smashing screens. Instead, it’s about smashing oppressive systems.
References
- ^ rooted in a popular misconception (theconversation.com)
- ^ turbocharge (www.wired.com)
- ^ public digital infrastructure (www.project-syndicate.org)
- ^ collective bargaining by riot (www.jstor.org)
- ^ silk weavers similarly revolted (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ England’s Diggers and Levellers (jacobin.com)
- ^ Working Class Movement Library catalogue (commons.wikimedia.org)
- ^ provided data systems to the Nazis to track victims (www.jstor.org)
- ^ IG Farben also supplied Zyklon B gas for extermination camps (www.theholocaustexplained.org)
- ^ deepening inequality (theconversation.com)
- ^ eroding democracy (www.theatlantic.com)
- ^ undermining privacy (theconversation.com)
- ^ concentrating power (theconversation.com)
- ^ surveillance capitalism (theconversation.com)
- ^ displacement of human workers by AI algorithms (theconversation.com)
- ^ monopolistic platforms (theconversation.com)
- ^ “broligarchs” such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg (theconversation.com)
- ^ neo-Luddism (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ more than 3,000 Google workers protested (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ Google expanded defence deals (theconversation.com)
- ^ whistleblower Frances Haugen exposed the harmful algorithms (www.wsj.com)
- ^ Amazon and Google staff also staged walkouts (time.com)
- ^ screenwriters and actors in Hollywood protested (theconversation.com)
- ^ right to disconnect (theconversation.com)
- ^ Algorithmic Justice League (www.ajl.org)
- ^ Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)
- ^ exposing AI bias (www.ted.com)
- ^ legal litigation (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ TraffickingHub petition has garnered more than two million signatories (traffickinghubpetition.com)
- ^ to cut ties to the website (www.reuters.com)
- ^ Anonymous (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ broke Apple’s app store monopoly (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ sparked a surge (techcrunch.com)
- ^ faced huge fines (theconversation.com)
- ^ antitrust lawsuits (theconversation.com)
- ^ long been challenged by free, open-source alternatives (theconversation.com)
- ^ Bluesky (theconversation.com)
- ^ grew from 1 million to more than 27 million users (backlinko.com)
- ^ policies aimed at enhancing people’s data rights (www.cdr.gov.au)
- ^ Digital Transformation Agency is also advocating (www.dta.gov.au)
- ^ DeepSeek (www.smh.com.au)
- ^ HuggingFace’s Deep Research (arstechnica.com)
