As drivers of change, Silicon Valley has always thought of itself as disruptors and innovators. In many respects, there is no doubt that from a historical perspective, Silicon Valley has fulfilled that perception. From the personal computer to the Internet to social media, Silicon Valley has led the charge when it comes to developing technology that has shifted the political, economic and social conversation over the past 50 years.
Now, however, it seems like the disruptor and innovator narrative of Silicon Valley is being passed to the very societal sectors that have been disrupted in the past. Whether Silicon Valley acknowledges or not, political, economic and social actors are pushing back against the disruption and innovation of Silicon Valley.
How are they pushing back? In many respects, there is no organized narrative related to this pushback. It is broad and it is all encompassing however.
From the social perspective, we are seeing this in the rising growth of “techlash”. Individuals from all spectrums of society are pushing back not only on the intrusion of technology in their daily lives and the perception that it brings out negative personal behaviors but also of the technology companies that dominate the field today.
From the political perspective, thanks to the rising growth of “techlash”, politicians have started to attempt to reign in Silicon Valley. Whether it is reconsidering Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that gave rise to social media or imposing new restrictions on the direction and growth of technology in general, politicians are leveraging the bad “Big Tech” narrative for their own political gains.
While the technology industry in general has continued to thrive and grow, its growth has been threatened by a number of factors. These include the growing reach and attention of state regulators and the increasing discontent the general populace has related to the disconnect between where technology futurists want to take us and where most of society wants technology.
Where does this leave the startup ecosystem? At present, in a very precarious state. While the current technology industry is relatively strong thanks to nearly two decades of unprecedented growth and has built a significant warchest, the reality is that the warchest pales in comparison to the array of adversaries the industry has against it.
In many respects, the techlash that the startup ecosystem is facing can be viewed from one of two perspectives. The first perspective is one where the techlash will lead to a modification of the current trajectory of the startup ecosystem as we know it. It is one that keeps the same foundations that we’re used to and pushes them into new technologies. Think blockchain and the metaverse. In other words, more of the same but with restrictions and caveats.
The other perspective though is a radical overhaul of the startup ecosystem. One that existing players will not recognize. It is a startup ecosystem that on one hand will prioritize large scale developments such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. These prioritizations though will not be for consumer benefit though but for traditional statecraft. Indeed, consumer wants and needs may be a distant tertiary consideration versus the primary one in this perspective.
In many respects, the two perspectives outlined above are indicative of a startup ecosystem that doesn’t necessarily benefit the majority of consumers but those of a select few either via political means or via economic means. While there are many in the current startup ecosystem that would state that today’s startups were already benefiting a select few, the new potential startup ecosystem could worsen the situation.
There is no doubt that today’s startup ecosystem is a product of great individual innovators and idealists. From Steve Jobs to Bill Gates, these individuals were willing to challenge industry and technological norms and not only created new industries but new economic and social paths as well.
As we look towards the future of Silicon Valley and where we build from the shoulders of these great innovators, the question increasingly becomes whether we will “go back to the future” in terms of innovation or pursue a direction that is more decentralized and radically different.
Indeed, whether discussing the two perspectives outlined above or understanding the roots of techlash, what we are seeing is a battle between centralization and decentralization. How the startup ecosystem navigates this will determine its direction over the next decade.
In many respects, the startup ecosystem is responsible for this battle. Thanks to technologies such as the Internet and 5G telecommunications, human civilization has simultaneously been able to come together as one community while pulling apart at the same time.
We’ve seen these throughout the political, economic and social spectrum across the globe. From the one community perspective, we have seen this with the incredible rise of “Big Tech” firms that have managed to dominate the technology conversation on a global basis. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we’ve seen previously small niche communities such as anime fans turn into global phenomena driving new multi-billion dollar industries.
With society pulling itself in two extreme and polar opposite directions, how do we ensure that the startup ecosystem remains resilient? That is a difficult question and requires peering into a crystal ball that no one has. However, we can define some parameters that will be required to ensure the startup ecosystem remains resilient in the unknown future.
In many respects, it will not be technology that will be at the forefront of startup ecosystem resilience but how we manage the greatest input of all: humans. There is no mistake that technology has freed society to pursue a different form of human management. The issue though is whether we choose to pursue it or not.
The technology and ideas that the startup ecosystem has enabled over its inception is one that has continued to breed individualism and self-reliance even in these dynamic times. The question becomes whether or not we as a society can build or reconstruct the current systems to support individualism and self-reliance or if we will move toward “forced centralization”.
Leave a Reply