Can Technology Humanize Us?

• Or Is It Doomed to Dehumanize Us Forever?

In his book Team Human, Doug Rushkoff paints a dire picture of our current predicament: “Autonomous technologies, runaway markets, and weaponized media seem to have overturned civil society, paralyzing our ability to think constructively, connect meaningfully, or act purposefully. It feels as if civilization itself were on the brink… It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Rushkoff’s warning serves as a crucial lens through which we can examine one of the most pressing crises of our time: the use of digital technology not just to spread propaganda, but to actively facilitate and deny genocide. A recent investigation by Drop Site News revealed that the Israeli government is set to spend $45 million on Google ads, YouTube, and other social media platforms to promote its version of reality. This expenditure is scandalous and profoundly immoral, coming from a state that the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has now officially declared to be carrying out a genocide, with an overwhelming 86% of its members endorsing the statement. The propaganda campaign is explicitly designed to discredit the UN and other organizations that have meticulously documented Israel’s atrocities, despite international media and observers being largely barred from Gaza.

This is not merely a case of political spin; it is a sophisticated digital strategy to deny a humanitarian catastrophe. As Drop Site reported, this advertising blitz includes a concerted effort to obscure the forced famine and starvation of Gazans, utilizing American influencers and funneling tens of millions of dollars to tech giants like Google, YouTube, X, and Meta. We are witnessing how the very platforms that promised to connect the world are being leveraged to cover up a genocide.

This phenomenon is not without historical precedent. During the Rwandan Genocide, radio was the central tool for dehumanization, with Hutu extremists using RTLM to label Tutsis as “cockroaches” that needed to be exterminated. Print media was similarly weaponized to stoke anti-Tutsi racism. In Bosnia, Serbian leaders used television and radio to dehumanize Bosniaks, harkening back to the 1389 Battle of Kosovo to paint them as race traitors and “outsiders” whose Muslim identity was a threat to Serb identity. In both cases, technology was a force multiplier. As Roy Gutman documents in A Witness to Genocide, the leaders who perpetuated these atrocities knew the power of media to amplify their messages, and they controlled both the message and the medium.

Today, however, the dynamic is more insidious and global. The centralized state control of radio and TV has been replaced by algorithmic amplification and a digital advertising ecosystem. The Israeli government is not just broadcasting its message; it is purchasing it, ensuring its narrative appears alongside organic content, making it harder for users to distinguish fact from fiction. This is a shift from state-owned propaganda to corporate-facilitated censorship. While there was no way for an outside force to regulate the radio in Rwanda, today there are corporate boards in Silicon Valley making decisions about which ads to run and which content to suppress. The banning of TikTok and the partnership of YouTube and Google with a state committing genocide are not just passive acts of negligence; they are active financial and policy decisions.

In the face of this, Rushkoff offers a crucial insight: the problem is not inherent to technology, but to its design and use. He reminds us that our advanced technologies are thwarting our connectivity, replacing our humanity, and “undermining our respect for one another and ourselves. Sadly, this has been by design. But that’s also why it can be reversed.”

So, what is the way out? If technology is currently being weaponized for dehumanization, it must be re-engineered for humanization. The first step is rejecting the false neutrality of the platforms. We must demand algorithmic transparency and accountability, holding tech companies legally and financially responsible for the content they profit from. Public pressure campaigns, akin to those that forced divestment from apartheid South Africa, could target the billions in ad revenue these platforms receive from governments engaged in human rights abuses. Citizens can reject the role of passive consumers and become active counter-forces, sharing verified information from journalists and human rights groups on the ground to counter the mainstream narratives.

The question of whether technology humanizes or dehumanizes us is not a fixed fate; it is a choice made by the societies that build and regulate it. As Rushkoff argues, our culture is now more composed of mediated experiences than directly lived ones. We must therefore be vigilant about the quality and source of those experiences. If we allow our digital spaces to be governed solely by profit and state interests, we concede our humanity. But by recognizing that the dehumanization is “by design,” we also recognize the agency to redesign it. The path forward requires a collective will to prioritize truth over propaganda and human life over corporate profit. It doesn’t have to be this way.

The post Can Technology Humanize Us? first appeared on Habits of the Heart.

The post Can Technology Humanize Us? appeared first on Habits of the Heart.