Technology, trust and the ballot

Among the many concerns that were on voters' minds during the US mid-term elections, some issues at the local level demonstrated an increasing level of distrust with both technology and technology companies. The public response to these issues gives an early indication of the changing landscape of how the population views the role of technology in their lives. Before we look at the mood of the electorate, it is important to recognise that most conversation on technology centred around digital technology, AI and data centres. While there was some occasional conversation on chips manufacturing (e.g. with regard to issues in foreign policy) or local manufacturing of generic pharmaceuticals (e.g. in the context of rising cost of healthcare), these topics were not nearly as prominent as those around data centres.

On the issue of data centres, the public response was substantial and almost exclusively against data centres. Candidates who opposed data centres did much better than their opponents who may have supported new data or have had softer stances on regulation. Interestingly, the opposition against data centres came from candidates of both parties. In total, there were 41 ballot measures across the US around data centres and in 40 of them voters either rejected development of data centres or severely restricted their development. Election data suggests that while nearly 88% of Democratic voters opposed data centres in their communities, over 60% of Republican voters also did the same. In some cases, such as Wisconsin, Democratic candidates who may have been pro data centres initially changed their positions under pressure from their Republican candidates demonstrating the broad public resistance. It is interesting to note that while the US continues to be a global leader in AI tech development, the issue of data centres is not universally backed by the large segment of population. In many ways, this is not surprising. Last year, in several commencement ceremonies graduation speakers who spoke about the opportunities created by the new AI-driven economy were widely booed by the students.

The issue of data centres or AI is not about the society's distrust of technology as a whole. In fact, historically American population has shown strong support of technological innovation. For example, per a 2024 survey by Morning Consult, 77% Americans believe technology is needed to solve global problems. That number, however, is significantly lower when questions are posed about technology companies, particularly social media companies, and their role in society. According to Pew Research, nearly 70% of Americans think social media companies have too much influence in society. This influence is resented not just because of a general sense of unfairness and ulterior motives of companies, but also because of the poor public image of the individuals who lead technology companies. This was particularly evident in Texas in the recent elections where Elon Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up and support a candidate who eventually lost by a wide margin. Other candidates supported by Mr Musk also did not do well. The oversized influence of ultra rich individuals in the tech sector on politics through direct infusion of cash in campaigns increases distrust of not just the individuals at the top but also the tech companies they are part of and their products. While the issues on the ballot may have been local, the distrust was evident across the whole country.

This discussion on trust and distrust perhaps points to a bigger question – one that goes beyond elections and is not limited only to the US. This is a point that technology scholars and philosophers have often debated. It is the idea that how technology is used and perceived is never entirely independent from the views and ambitions of those who are in charge of making, deploying and marketing it. There is nothing absolutely neutral about any technology. We are likely to see this perception play out in many societies in the not too distant future.