Problem Statement

Triplett (2022) stresses that while organizations invest billions in technological solutions, human factors remain the primary source of security vulnerabilities and breaches. Additional research reveals multiple interconnected issues stemming from inadequate attention to human elements in cybersecurity strategy. First, there exists a persistent knowledge gap where leaders treat cybersecurity as purely a technological challenge rather than a sociotechnical problem requiring human behavior management (McEvoy & Kowalski, 2019). This narrow-mindedness results in cybersecurity leaders who possess strong technical competencies but lack the interpersonal, communication, and cultural transformation skills necessary to effectively engage with non-technical employees (Cole, 2022).

Second, organizational cultures often exhibit security immaturity. Prakash & Pearlson suggest that employees demonstrate complacent attitudes toward cybersecurity responsibilities when leaders fail to establish accountability structures (2024). The literature indicates that organizations operate at basic cybersecurity culture maturity levels where employees believe "technology teams will keep us safe" (p. 3) rather than embracing personal responsibility for security, Prakash & Pearlson add. Third, traditional security awareness training approaches demonstrate limited effectiveness, with studies showing no significant correlation between recent annual training completion and employee ability to avoid phishing attacks (UC, Dept. of Computer Science, 2025). Finally, insider threats represent a growing challenge that requires sophisticated human factors analysis and behavioral intervention strategies (Watts, 2024) (Sifma, 2024).

Problem Statement

The systematic literature review conducted by Triplett (2022) provides comprehensive evidence that unintentional human factors significantly impact cybersecurity effectiveness across organizations. Analysis of 15 studies revealed consistent patterns of human vulnerabilities including employees forgetting to log out of systems, creating weak passwords, and unknowingly clicking malicious links due to limited cybersecurity knowledge. These behaviors stem from deeper organizational factors including inadequate leadership attention to human behavior, insufficient communication between technical and non-technical staff, and workplace stress that contributes to security fatigue (Pollini, et al., 2022).

McEvoy & Kowalski (2019) agree with Triplett’s assessment, stating that the sociotechnical systems perspective reveals that cybersecurity risks emerge from complex interactions between individual, organizational, and technological factors. They also suggest that current risk analysis methodologies focus primarily on technical and procedural requirements while systematically excluding sociotechnical considerations. This leaves organizations vulnerable to predictable human-centered attacks. The Behavioral Security Model demonstrates that sustainable security requires addressing four interconnected dimensions: knowledge, context, motivation, and behavior (SOSafe, 2025). Organizations that fail to address these dimensions comprehensively experience persistent security vulnerabilities despite substantial technological investments.

Per SoSafe, leadership competency analysis reveals significant gaps in cybersecurity leaders' ability to bridge technical and business domains while effectively communicating with diverse stakeholder groups. Moreso, SoSafe suggests managers facilitating repetitive training increases user memory retention (Figure 1). Research indicates that effective cybersecurity leaders require not only technical expertise but also business acumen, emotional intelligence, and transformational leadership capabilities (Corll, 2024) (Burton, et al., 2023). However, cybersecurity professionals are underrepresented in organizational leadership hierarchies and lack the social capital necessary to influence organizational behavior change. However, IT representation is trending upward (Llorca, 2024). Gartner suggests that 84% of the highest performing companies now include Chief Information Officers (CIOs) within their executive leadership teams (2025).

Nonetheless, the insider threat dimension presents particularly complex challenges requiring integration of human resources, legal, risk management, and cybersecurity functions. Watts (2024) suggests that organizations must distinguish between intentional and unintentional insider threats while implementing monitoring and intervention strategies that respect employee privacy and maintain organizational trust.

Alternative Solutions

Training and Awareness Enhancement Approaches

Research demonstrates that well-designed security awareness training can reduce phishing susceptibility from 60% to 10% within 12 months, with studies showing 80% of organizations reporting reduced staff susceptibility to phishing attacks (Daly, 2025). Continuous, behavior-focused training programs that incorporate psychological principles show promise for creating lasting behavioral change. Traditional annual training approaches show limited effectiveness, with recent studies finding no correlation between training recency and phishing resistance (UC, Dept. of Computer Science, 2025). Many training programs focus on knowledge transfer rather than behavior modification, resulting in awareness without corresponding behavioral change (HoxHunt, 2025).

Cybersecurity Culture Transformation Initiatives

Prakash & Pearlson’s (2024) culture maturity model provides structured framework for organizations to progress from basic security awareness to dynamic cybersecurity cultures where employees proactively identify and address threats. Everard (2025) suggests that cultural approaches address root causes of security vulnerabilities by aligning organizational values, attitudes, and beliefs with security objectives. However, Triplet (2022) stresses that culture transformation requires significant time investment and sustained leadership commitment, with outcomes difficult to measure quantitatively. Therefore, he suggests that cultural initiatives may face resistance from employees who view security requirements as burdensome rather than value-adding.

Technology-Enhanced Human Factors Management

Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications can identify behavioral anomalies and provide predictive insights for insider threat management, per Sifma (2024). Sifma also suggests that identity and access management systems can reduce human error by automating security controls and limiting exposure to mistakes. However, technology cannot address underlying behavioral human factors. Triplet (2022) and McEvoy & Kowalski (2019) suggest that over-reliance on technological solutions perpetuates the fundamental problem of treating cybersecurity as a technical rather than sociotechnical issues.

Leadership Development and Communication Enhancement

Developing cybersecurity leaders with strong communication and social skills enables better engagement with non-technical employees and executives (Corll, 2024). Leadership development programs can address the gap between technical expertise and business competencies (Triplet, 2022). However, it requires sustained investment and may not address systemic organizational issues contributing to security vulnerabilities. Leadership improvements may be insufficient without corresponding structural changes, per Triplet.

Recommendations / Reflection

Based on Triplet’s literature (2022), organizations should adopt an integrated Human-Centered Cybersecurity Leadership Framework that addresses technical and human dimensions of security. The priority is to implement a Behavioral Security Model which can address knowledge, motivation, and behavior with continuous learning programs that incorporate proven frameworks. Real-time feedback, social reinforcement, and practical exercises can help embed secure behaviors into daily routines.

A second recommendation is to establish cross-functional insider threat teams that bring together human resources, legal, privacy, risk management, and cybersecurity professionals. These professionals should address insider threats with an approach that stresses deterrence through a positive climate rather than relying solely on punitive measures. With transparency and trust, employees are encouraged to proactively report findings.

Third, leadership development must be prioritized to create transformational cybersecurity leaders. Effective leaders in this space require a blend of technical expertise, business acumen, and strong interpersonal skills. Leadership programs should emphasize emotional intelligence, adaptive communication, and motivation. Leaders who can bridge technical and non-technical gaps are better equipped to drive cultural change (Prakash & Pearlson, 2024).

Finally, organizations should invest in cybersecurity culture maturity assessment and development programs. These programs provide frameworks for enhancing the organization’s security culture, guiding the transition from basic compliance mindsets to dynamic, resilient cultures where all employees see themselves as active defenders (Everard, 2025). Technology alone is insufficient for sustainable security. True resilience requires a holistic approach that integrates behavioral science, cultural evolution, and leadership development. Organizations that commit to this comprehensive strategy will be better positioned to address evolving cyber threats, maintain operational effectiveness, and empower employees as essential partners in defense.

Problem Statement

The central problem identified by Hiller et al. (2024) is the unsustainable spiral of cyberinsecurity in the United States, driven by a fragmented regulatory landscape, overreliance on self-regulation, and chronic underinvestment in cybersecurity, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises. As Schneier (2018) illustrates, the rapid proliferation of IoT devices and the interconnectedness of critical infrastructure amplify these vulnerabilities, making the consequences of policy failures increasingly severe. He explains that manufacturers prioritize cost-savings over security. This leaves devices lacking the quality assurance needed (Matthews, 2017). And the lack of penalties for insecure products means companies have no incentive to change posture (Tjahja, 2022). Hiller et al. explain that existing regulatory frameworks are siloed by sector, leading to inconsistent oversight.

Case Analysis

Hiller et al. document how each year brings record-breaking cyberattacks. The authors argue that negative externalities and information asymmetries lead to chronic underinvestment in cybersecurity. Schneier suggests that the rapid proliferation of IoT devices has expanded the attack vectors for malicious actors. Duarte states that in 2025 the worldwide sum of connected IoT devices will reach 30.9 B (2024). Internet+ interconnectedness enables vulnerabilities to cascade and amplify, Schneier adds; and as the number of devices grows, risk grows exponentially.

However, at the time of Schneier’s writing, Gartner’s 2020 projection of connected IoT devices reaching 20.5 B was an overestimation. Sinha reported only 11.3 B devices (2024). Despite this, Schneier’s concern is still warranted. The core problem identified by Hiller et al. is the systemic insecurity inherent in the modern digital ecosystem. Schneier suggests that IoT devices are often rushed to market with security considerations lacking. Key issues include the absence of industry incentives to prioritize security, insuƯicient regulatory oversight, and a gap in consumer awareness. These factors collectively contribute to an environment where vulnerabilities in everyday devices can be exploited to jeopardize physical safety and national security.

"A rational CEO will choose to save money [on security] or spend it on new features to compete in the market... most of the costs of insecurity will be borne by other parties" (p. 124). Schneier frames this as a "Prisoner’s Dilemma," where companies avoid security costs to maintain competitive pricing, despite the systemic risks. The market favors rapid development and cost savings over robust security (Davy, et al., 2022). Meanwhile, consumers are ill-equipped to demand better protection. Moreso, Hiller et al. explain that the absence of mandatory security standards and oversight exacerbates these issues.

Hiller et al. use real-world incidents and plausible scenarios to illustrate the dangers, including weak default passwords (Naprys, 2025), delayed software updates (Islam, 2023), and omitting encryption for sensitive data (ESG, 2024). Additionally, Schneier portrays his hypothetical “click here to kill everybody” scenario, where a hacked bioprinter created a lethal virus. These examples highlight that IoT insecurity is not just a technical issue, but a societal risk with potentially global consequences.

Alternative Solutions

The alternatives to Hiller et al.’s cybersecurity challenges are as follows. One option is the adoption of voluntary industry standards. These must quickly adapt to technological changes and impose less regulatory burden on manufacturers (Goldstein, 2018). However, Schneier stresses that their eƯectiveness is limited. He illustrates historic examples of manufacturers ignoring security best practices (e.g., Jeep’s delayed patch, D-Link’s deceptive trade practices). Pardis et al. suggests another approach involving increasing consumer awareness (2020). This can empower consumers to make safer choices and raise public pressure on manufacturers (Xiao, 2021). However, the technical complexity of IoT and the information asymmetry thereof makes it diƯicult for consumers to assess device security, warns Schneier. “This asymmetry makes deterrence more diƯicult” (p. 92).

Technical solutions directly address vulnerabilities and can be incrementally adopted by manufacturers. This may involve implementing better encryption and secure coding practices. While these measures are important, Schneier suggests that their adoption is uneven across the industry. Moreso, they cannot resolve the broader systemic issues, he includes. Additionally, Kavinsky explains that the IoT global supply chains and data flows complicate regulation enforcement (2023). Therefore, Schneier suggests mandatory security standards (instead of voluntary) which oƯer a comprehensive, consistent solution where manufacturers are compelled to comply. Nevertheless, regulatory approaches may be slow to adapt to rapid technological change. Moreso, manufacturers may be forced to raise prices for consumers and sacrifice innovation (Emami-Naeini, et al., 2020).

The primary solution advanced by Hiller et al. is an incentive-based tax policy toolkit that includes both tax credits for positive cybersecurity investments and penalties for underinvestment, tailored to entity size and industry. While voluntary standards and consumer awareness campaigns are discussed as alternatives, both the article and Schneier’s work highlight their limitations in the face of complex, evolving threats (Wolf, 2019). Schneier’s advocacy for mandatory standards and product liability complements the article’s call for policy tools that realign private sector incentives with the public good.

Conclusion

The “carrots and sticks” incentive-based framework outlined by Hiller et al. presents a practical and balanced solution to the chronic underinvestment in cybersecurity. By combining tax credits for proactive security measures with penalties for noncompliance, this approach directly addresses the market failures and misaligned incentives that have left many small and medium-sized businesses of whom are vulnerable to attack.

Schneier’s examples of IoT and infrastructure breaches reinforce the urgency of adopting such systemic reforms. While voluntary standards and consumer education remain helpful, both Hiller et al. and Schneier demonstrate these alone are insuƯicient for today’s rapidly evolving cyber risks. Ultimately, the “carrots and sticks” strategy oƯers a promising path to realign incentives, foster accountability, and build a more resilient digital ecosystem.

Introduction

Society has recently entered a period of rapid technological, ideological, and biological change. Innovations are reshaping society at an exponential pace. However, longstanding institutions, legal frameworks, and cultural norms are struggling to keep up, creating what Azeem Azhar terms the “exponential gap.” This widening divide between technological progress and societal adaptation has fueled polarization, inequality, and concentrated power. Meanwhile, the technology industry’s self-mythologizing and selective amnesia serves to obscure historical context, limit critical discourse, and shield companies from accountability, as Adrian Daub argues. Moreso, COVID-19 has exposed vulnerabilities of contemporary society, with BernardHenri Lévy warning against unchecked medical authority, and erosion of democratic debate and civil liberties.

This paper offers a comparative analysis of The Exponential Age by Azeem Azhar (2021), What Tech Calls Thinking by Dr. Adrian Daub (2020), and The Virus in the Age of Madness by Bernard-Henri Lévy (2020), examining how each work interrogates the impact of rapid changes in societal structures, individual agency, and the balance of power. By exploring intersections and divergences in their critiques, this study highlights challenges and ethical dilemmas facing society. Ultimately, these works converge for renewed engagement, ethical vigilance, and collective action to ensure benefits of progress are shared and that democracy and dignity are preserved amidst disruption and crisis. Additional intersections between these works and Geroge Friedman’s socioeconomic philosophy are explored. Friedman’s 80-year institutional and 50-year industrial cycles state that America undergoes political and socioeconomic transformations, respectively (2020).

Analysis and Overview of the Exponential Age

The central themes of The Exponential Age (2021) revolve around the exceptional pace of technological advancement and acute societal challenges thereof. The book introduces the concept of the "exponential gap," (p. 16) which describes rapidly evolving technologies and society's inability to adapt its institutions, laws, and cultural norms. The gap is revealed in political polarization, rising inequality, and unchecked corporate power.

The central themes of The Exponential Age (2021) revolve around the exceptional pace of technological advancement and acute societal challenges thereof. The book introduces the concept of the "exponential gap," (p. 16) which describes rapidly evolving technologies and society's inability to adapt its institutions, laws, and cultural norms. The gap is revealed in political polarization, rising inequality, and unchecked corporate power.

Moreso, Azhar highlights how traditional linear thinking and institutional "path dependence" (p. 110) leave societies ill-equipped for exponential change. He explains that the repercussions of this are that it results in “institutional lag and cultural lag” (p. 87), as seen in the rise of the gig economy, data breaches, and pandemic response.

The Exponential Gap

In Wired (2021), Azhar suggested the gap is created by two forces—"the inherent difficulty of making predictions” and “the inherent slowness of institutional change” (para. 41). Business dynamics have shifted, with big-tech companies leveraging network effects, intangible assets, and platform models to achieve unprecedented scale and dominance. Notably, at the expense of smaller producers and economic dynamism, he adds. Additionally, he argues that these firms exploit global tax loopholes and challenge traditional antitrust frameworks. Thus, affecting labor compensation through shifted tax burdens (Doyle, Carlos, & Serrato, 2024). This, in concert with automation, negatively impacts labor markets (Holzer, 2022). However, Azhar explains that the rise of gig work has brought forth the benefit of increased work flexibility. Though, this type of work is associated with insecurity and inequality; thus, new approaches to labor rights and protections are needed, per NBER (2025).

Wright’s Law vs Moore’s Law

Drivers of Azhar’s exponentiality include global supply chains and freemarket economics. Azhar suggests that the free-market helped drive globalization; and, in turn, globalization helped drive the Exponential Age. He suggests that the Exponential Age can be traced back to the early 1900s with Theodore P. Wright’s analysis of airplane production costs (1936). In fact, experts indicate that Wright’s Law more accurately describes technological evolution when compared to Moore’s Law (McCormick, 2012) (Johnson, 2013) (Winton, 2019) (Figure 1).

The Exponential Gap vs Hype Gap

The “Tech Hype Gap” describes when anticipation about a technology precedes its actual usage. Moreso, it highlights the negative social impact of marketing outpacing actual progress (Davis, 2019). This gap is based off the “Gartner Hype Cycle,” which describes the maturity and adoption of technologies over time (Fenn & Linden, 2003). Moreso, Fenn and Raskino explain that overly optimistic expectations can lead to discontent or backlash if a technology does not “live up to the hype” (2008). While the Gartner Hype Cycle originates from overly optimistic marketing claims, particularly for AI (2019) (Figure 2) (Appendix A), the Exponential Gap is caused by technology growth, causing market disruption and societal inequalities. For instance, market disruption is seen through the emergence of online retailers like Amazon displacing brick-and-mortars stores. Moreso, gig work displacing official work exacerbates income inequality (Sankararaman, 2024).

Globalization

The world has entered a third phase of globalization which involves sophisticated, digitized supply chains (Friedman T. , 2005). However, Ahar suggests that, geopolitically, the world is becoming "spiky," with innovation and prosperity concentrated throughout urban centers of wealthy nations. Modern technologies enable local production and fragment global networks into "splinternets" (pp. 206 – 235). In its inception, the Internet was distinctly American but always promised a borderless future. However, cybersecurity, disinformation, and digital warfare have exposed vulnerabilities to government agencies, requiring new norms, cooperation, and resilience in the face of rapidly evolving threats.

The Four Broad Domains

Computing

The computing domain is realizing new GPTs like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Cloud Computing, and Quantum Computing. Therefore, Azhar suggests that new frameworks are needed to ease their transitions. Gartner’s Hype Cycle helps avoid inflated expectations and disillusionment of AI (Coshow, 2024). DevSecOps, an IT project management methodology, avoids vulnerabilities to cybersecurity attacks that organizations might face in the cloud (NIST, 2022). The Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act (2022) ensures resilience of information systems in a post-quantum cryptography Internet (Sanzeri, 2023).

Energy

According to a Rockwell Automation survey, energy management is the top sustainability concern for organizations (2025). The energy domain is emerging with new GPTs like next-gen renewables, batteries, and nuclear reactors (Chu & Tarazano, 2025). The solar panel first appeared at Bell Labs in the 1950s, with low efficiency. However, continuous advancements in efficiency and affordability realize a wider adoption (EIA, 2023) (Figure 3). Next generation battery technologies (i.e., sodium-ion, solid-state), offering faster charging and more capacity than their lithium-ion counterparts (DOE, 2025), make electronic vehicles (EVs) safer and more efficient—thus more enticing to consumers (Reuters, 2025). Improvements to nuclear reactor design (Barbarino, 2022) promise advancements in energy production, waste management, and overall societal benefits (WNA, 2021). For instance, experts suggest nuclear power is key to meet the future demands of computational power for AI and data center processing (Calma, 2023) (Browne, 2024).

Biology

DNA synthesis, genomics, and biomanufacturing are novel GPTs in the biology domain highlighting revolutionary evolution in the exponential age. Recent advances in automated DNA synthesis enable the creation of new DNA sequences for various applications. Patents surrounding DNA Synthesis reached approximately 472 thousand filings in 2023. This suggests wide scientific community adoption and use (Wellspring, 2024). Regarding genomics, long-read sequencing techniques (e.g., Oxford Nanopore) offer unprecedented accuracy and accessibility. For instance, the SmidgION brings laboratory-grade sequencing to mobile devices (Wang, et al., 2021). Industry 4.0 and the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) are key determinants in the future state of biomanufacturing (Dikicioglu & Borgosz, 2024). Concepts like soft sensors aid in the digitization of bioprocessing (Rathore, Nikita, & Jesubalan, 2022).

Manufacturing

Smart manufacturing, additive manufacturing, and cloud-based supply chains are revolutionizing manufacturing for organizations. Worldwide, companies continuously increase their technology budgets to integrate smart manufacturing equipment into their factories (Rockwell Automation, 2025). Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, is enabling manufacturers to become more agile by harnessing rapid prototyping of new designs and concepts (Chen & Lin, 2019). Additionally, this approach allows manufacturers to explore new material science breakthroughs with varieties of additive polymers (King, 2022). Regarding cloud-based supply chains, GenAI integrations are the top technology investment for manufacturing companies (Gartner, 2025).

Institutional and Cultural Lag

Azhar defines institutional and cultural lag in terms of the organizational and societal implications they can have such as political division, inequality, and unchecked power. Similarly, the ends of George Friedman’s cycles (i.e., 80-year institutional, 50-year industrial), each predict political and economic disruption, respectively (2020). The late 2020s are unique in that these 80- and 50-year cycles will converge amid the “exponential age.”

Prior to The Great Depression, William Ogburn observed lag associated with the introduction of industrial machinery and automobiles (1922). Rick Maurer points to other examples of institutional and cultural lag within the information technology realm including resistance to change and digital literacy, respectively (2010). In fact, according to a Gartner survey, 80% of all data breaches within organizations are caused by misconfigured systems and 99% of cloud failures are attributed to human error (Panetta, 2019). This suggests a knowledge gap (or lag) in workforces throughout organizations (Chaudhary, 2023).

Implications

Azhar’s “exponential gap” reflects the widening divide Friedman describes in his socioeconomic cycles. Both warn that unchecked, exponential growth risk overconsumption, systemic instability, and further concentration of power. However, he also emphasizes that society can shape these outcomes through deliberate choices, updated policies, and new institutions focused on transparency, digital rights, and building shared digital commons. From an IT perspective, if an organization lags, it risks operational inefficiencies (e.g., outdated software, hindered automation), financial risks (e.g., accounting compliance issues, lost opportunities), and security risks (e.g., malware, data breaches) (Byrd, 2024). Finally, Lauren Arcuri suggests that technological advancements have contributed declining birth rates (2019).

Remedies

Azhar calls for radical thinking and collective action to bridge the exponential gap, harnessing technological change for the common good and ensuring that the benefits of the Exponential Age are widely shared. For example, Florida Governor DeSantis’s Digital Bill of Rights, protects Floridians from the overreach and surveillance of tech giants (FedSoc, 2023). Regarding IT lag, federal agencies housing sensitive data are hesitant to move to the cloud despite their software vendors urging them to do so (Hanna, 2023) (Chao, 2024). To aid in this predicament, the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) designed the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) framework in alignment with Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) to ensure US federal agencies can securely use cloud technologies. FedRAMP laid a foundation for companies and other governments to help reduce the risk of data breaches and cyber threats (Blokdyk, 2021). FedRAMP coupled with the DevSecOps IT project management and deployment methodology helps ensure that cloudbased information systems are not prone to vulnerabilities (Arshad, 2023). Regarding declining birth rates, Dr. Karen Guzzo suggests institutionalized pronatalist tactics such as tax benefits or subsidies (2025).

Analysis and Overview of What Tech Calls Thinking

The central themes of Adrian Daub’s What Tech Calls Thinking (2020) revolves around how the technology industry constructs self-referential mythology and worldview by reframing old ideas, selectively forgetting history, and promoting false narratives. Daub argues that these tactics confine critical dialogue and disenfranchise relevant experience. Moreso, he explains that the industry’s embrace of technological determinism serves to justify ethically questionable practices and to minimize accountability.

Mythology and Worldview Construction in Tech

Daub suggests that the technology industry cultivates self-referential mythology by reframing historical ideas as novel where “the myth of precariousness persist[s]” (p. 12). This process involves selectively erasing context to position technological development as an inevitable force rather than a socially contingent process. By obscuring precedents (e.g.,19th century industrialism, 1960s counterculture) technology leaders present governance and labor challenges as unprecedented. They then proceed to stifle meaningful dialogue with critics who draw parallels to past societal shifts, Daub explains. For instance, work by Thiel and Sack at Stanford (1998) explores the groupthink mentality they observed in academia. However, this continues to be observed (Wooldridge, 2023) (Blease, 2023).

Selective Historical Amnesia

Daub suggests that selective amnesia observed within the technology industry enables companies to dismiss regulatory concerns and ethical critiques. He highlights gig economy worker rights as clashes between modern tech models and old labor laws, like 20th-century workplace protection struggles. Moreso, the emergence of online riding sharing platforms has decreased employment and earnings within the taxi industry, per NBER (2025) and Schneider (2019) (Figure 4). Additionally, “[c]oding went from being clerical busywork done by women to a well-paid profession dominated by men” (p. 8). Also, Daub suggests that the historical precedents for monopolistic practices and privacy encroachments have become minimized. Technology companies are positioning themselves in uncharted territory; therefore, Daub suggests the need for new frameworks. Likewise, Kristie Lam of UC San Franciso College of Law suggests the adoption of antitrust frameworks to ensure data collection practices no longer violate user privacy, e.g., Klein v. Facebook (2022), (Lam, 2024).

Technological Determinism as Ideology

Per work by early 20th century sociologist Thorstein Veblen, technological determinism is the belief that technological advancement is inevitable and outside human control. Moreso, it is the belief that tools dictate societal outcomes (McLuhan, 1964). The technology industry’s embrace of technological determinism serves as prophecy and justification. For instance, framing technological advancements (e.g., AI, blockchain) as autonomous forces, technology executives deflect accountability, arguing they merely respond to inevitable progress. This worldview underpins arguments against regulation and ethical oversight, suggests Daub.

However, in a subcommittee hearing regarding the cybersecurity implications of a lacking AI posture within government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) notably argued that innovation must not be stifled (2023). Industry experts recommend AI powered risk analysis software to stay secure in cyberspace (IBM) (Cisco). The fact that AI must be fought with AI brings forth a conundrum to governments and organizations (Humble, 2024).

Linguistic Framing and Power Dynamics

Because of its influence on human advancement, innovation is complicated to legislate. Regarding linguistics and dynamics, Daub suggests that “neuro-linguistic programming remains influential today” (p. 144). He states rhetoric behind certain buzzwords (e.g., disruption, scale) launder extractive practices as revolutionary altruism. He explains that these terms create a linguistic ecosystem where criticism becomes semantically impossible to oppose. This is like President Trump’s rhetorical use of “common sense” to establish dichotomy with political opponents (Wodajo, 2025). Whether or not ulterior motives are at play in these accounts, Daub brings forth a relevant conversation. This parallels Friedman’s observation of how neoliberalism has shaped economic and political institutions in ways that prioritize capital over democratic governance (Kottász, 2023).

Repurposing Traditions

Daub suggests that “innovative” technology concepts are recycled versions of older concepts. For instance, he argues that the tech “dropout” myth repackages frontier individualism, masking the role of privilege, e.g., family wealth, elite networks. He explains that these factors enable risk-taking that less privileged students do not have. “It’s worth keeping this sense of dropping out in mind when one considers the mythology of famous tech industry college dropouts” (p. 29), he adds. Gap years (or dropping out altogether) in university enable students to venture into entrepreneurship and explore creativity. Therefore, Michael B. Horn, of the Chistensen Institute, argues that gap years should be made available to all students because of the benefits incurred, i.e., career exploration, personal growth, cultural experiences, reduced burnout (2020).

Commodified Self-Help

Daub observes that productivity-tracking apps centralize power by being commodified into marketing programs. For instance, a study by Canboy & Khlif (2025) observes the advancing power dynamics across companies that offer productivity-tracking software within servitization ecosystems, e.g., Google, Apple. The authors suggest that servitization can negatively impact customers and manufacturers (Table 1). Servitization is a paradigm shift exposing manufacturers to new revenue streams; however, it can reduce customer ownership and increase customer dependency (Zhang & Banerji, 2017).

Dominance Amongst Platforms

Regarding platform dominance, Daub argues that Silicon Valley has focused on McLuhan-inspired “medium over message” (2001). He explains that this is observed in social media platforms that devalue content. For instance, some experts suggest YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is left-leaning (Ibrahim, et al., 2023) (Dolan, 2023), while others suggest the opposite (Iyer, 2023). By this sentiment, Daub alludes to Marshall McLuhan’s work on cultural transformations and the impact of mass media on societal norms (1964). Other authors’ findings share similar results (Euchner, 2021) (Cole, 2020).

Manipulation of Labor Laws

Daub suggests that social media firms avoid compensating their content creators by categorizing their work as hobbyism. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act further enables this cost avoidance by absolving platforms of responsibility for hosted content, despite algorithmic amplification of biased or harmful material. Alan Rozenshtein suggests that ambiguities within Section 230 allow platforms to bypass restrictions (2023). Moritz Schramm raises similar concerns about the European Union’s Digital Services Act, arguing that while it aims to set global regulatory standards, it actually grants significant discretion to private entities in its implementation in the pursuit of globalization (2025).

Philosophical Underpinnings and Contradictions

Daub alludes to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of heroic individualism as a staple ideal that permeates technology culture. He suggests that this ideal aestheticizes overworking as passion. Leonard Peikoff shares similar sentiments, suggesting that objectivism frames corporate growth as a moral virtue (1993). Daub explains that this ethos surfaces in founder narratives that celebrate “genius” visionaries while ignoring systemic advantages. For example, the gig economy exemplifies this contradiction, rebranding precarious work as entrepreneurial freedom. Moreso, Daub suggests that Silicon Valley’s celebration of failure, e.g., “fail fast and then iterate” (p. 144), obscures its uneven consequences. For instance, while privileged founders frame setbacks as learning opportunities, marginalized workers face disproportionate fallout from algorithmic layoffs or startup collapses (Faber, Williams, & Skinta, 2024). This selective framing ignores the safety nets (e.g., venture capital, familial wealth, telework capabilities) of privileged workers. For instance, the impact of COVID-19 on labor markets further epitomizes this notion regarding the inequality between white- and blue-collar workers (BLS, 2022).

Open Communication and Its Discontents

Despite rhetoric about democratizing discourse, engagement-driven platforms often incentivize polarization, explains Daub. He states that tools designed for “connection” frequently amplify abuse and misinformation. For instance, clinical experts suggest that social media causes depression amongst children (Lin, et al., 2016 ) (Miller, 2025). Additionally, Internet trolling emerges as both a byproduct and instrument of this system, describes Volkmer, et al. (2023). They explain that malicious users weaponize free speech to harass others. Furthermore, they suggest a strong correlation (Figure 5) between trolling and the “Dark Terad” of personality (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism) by Buckles, et al. (2013).

Mimetic Desire and Manufactured Conflict

Daub recalls Peter Thiel’s adoption of René Girard’s mimetic theory which frames human desire as imitative. Douglas Green explains how Girad's mimetic theory, when applied to business applications, can forecast consumer behavior and market trends (2025). However, Daub reveals how tech giants manipulate narratives for competitive gain. For instance, by portraying markets as arenas of existential rivalry, technology executives attempt to justify monopolistic practices while minimizing criticisms. This victimhood narrative reinforces Silicon Valley’s self- image as a persecuted visionary class. In fact, Deborah Perry Piscione relates this “ingenuity” to political dysfunction (2013).

Analysis and Overview of Virus in the Age of Madness

Bernard-Henri Lévy’s Virus in the Age of Madness (2020) offers a critique of the societal and governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. Lévy argues that anxiety and authoritarianism threaten to corrode democratic values, ethical responsibility, and human connection. He also offers insight into the geopolitical dynamics surrounding the pandemic response. Additionally, he calls for a revival of civic discourse and a rejection of reductive views of human life by dissecting the intersection of medical authority, philosophy, and politics.

The Rise of Medical Authority and Democratic Erosion

Medical Gaze and Modern Implications

Lévy draws on Michel Foucault’s concept of the “medical gaze” to analyze how the pandemic amplified the influence of doctors and health experts. Foucault discovered perceived connections between knowledge and power within medical industry, arguing that “those in power set the agenda” (1994). Lévy observed this during COVID-19, which led to marginalizing political judgment and democratic oversight. He warns that unchecked authority risks repeating historical abuses (e.g., eugenics) by prioritizing biological survival over civil liberties. Similarly, George Friedman critiques technocrats, disconnected from practical realities, leading to institutional failures in balancing health measures with underlying economic and social costs (2021). In a study analyzing governmental response to COVID, Lacey, Jackson, & Feldman observed a degradation in citizens’ confidence (2021) (Figure 6), implying dissatisfaction.

The Fragility of Scientific Consensus

Contrary to portrayals of science as monolithic, alluded in Griffin Trotter’s journal article about COVID-19 and the “Authority of Science” (2023), Lévy emphasizes its inherent uncertainty and internal conflicts. He argues that treating science as an infallible authority stifles debate, allowing a technocracy to impose policies without transparency or accountability. Friedman suggests that technocrats “live their lives abstractly” and “all [their] problems are intellectual” (2020) (p. 156), which underscores Lévy’s concern about unchecked authority.

Rejecting Romanticization of the Pandemic

Moral and Redemptive Narratives

Lévy criticizes narratives that attribute moral lessons or divine purpose to the virus, calling them intellectually misguided and insensitive to human suffering. He asserts that viruses lack intentionality, and pandemics do not inherently convey virtue or cosmic messages. Likewise, Trotter argues that moral and political stances cannot be derived solely from objective facts (2023). Consequently, this limitation has motivated scientists and policymakers to engage in actions and make statements that undermine the credibility of science, he concludes.

Pragmatism Over Utopianism

Lévy’s philosophy rejects extensive social blueprints and future-oriented idealism in favor of pragmatic, ethical responses to injustice and a defense of liberty (Gardels, 2021). Throughout the book, Lévy advocates for rational, pragmatic debates about pandemic responses, urging societies to weigh concrete costs against the benefits of restrictive measures. These costs may include economic collapse or mental health crises. Lévy rejects utopian visions of societal rebirth, e.g., Fernando, et al. (2022), Yoshihisa & Fernando (2020). On the contrary, Lévy insists that solutions must address immediate human needs rather than broad, abstract ideals.

Critique of Lockdown as Spiritual Retreat

Privilege and Disconnection

Lévy exposes the romanticization of lockdowns as opportunities for self-improvement or spiritual growth, arguing that this view reflects privilege and ignores the struggles of those in poverty, abusive households, or solitary confinement. For marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, isolation exacerbates existing vulnerabilities (Hwang, Rabheru, Peisah, Reichman, & Ikeda, 2020). Critics of Lévy’s work argue that “[i]t can be, at times, difficult to read” (Huminski, 2020) (para. 16) and that he claims the “responses to the coronavirus have been a matter of political psychosis” (McLemee, 2020) (para. 7).

Philosophical Foundations of Engagement

Drawing on existentialist and humanist traditions, Lévy contends that fulfillment arises from engagement with others, not withdrawal. While it may be medically necessary, social distancing risks normalizing alienation and weakening the ethical bonds that sustain communities (Zhu, Zhang, Zhou, Li, & Yang, 2021). Moreso, Lévy depicts a shift from a social contract to a “life contract” that trades liberties for security. This shift is further described as being grounded in mutual rights and responsibilities. He also questions whether this transition is temporary or a precursor to a surveillance-driven future where bodily safety eclipses intellectual, cultural, and spiritual pursuits. Finally, Lévy concludes with a plea to prioritize humanistic values (i.e., compassion, solidarity, intellectual curiosity) over fear-driven conformity. He envisions a future where societies embrace virtues (i.e., risk, complexity, global responsibility) and reject “madness” of authoritarianism.

Global Isolationism and Abandoned Solidarity

Retreat from Global Engagement

Lévy laments how Western societies turned inward during the pandemic, neglecting ever-present global crises such as poverty. He argues that this isolationism contradicts the interconnected reality of modern life and undermines moral obligations to vulnerable populations. Moreso, AMA Journal of Ethics researchers suggest that people with disabled embodiment were particularly isolated from pandemic-induced confinement (Atkins & Das, 2022). Additionally, he suggests that the pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital surveillance tools. Alongside this observation, a Deloitte survey found organizations’ technology budgets increase amid the pandemic (2021) (Figure 7). By governments normalizing intrusions into private life under the guise of public health, Lévy warns that such measures could outlast the crisis, enabling perpetual authoritarianism under the banner of safety. This parallels prior concerns about the USA Patriot Act’s impact on privacy, e.g., Pattat (2023), Li (2021).

Sanitized Society vs. Human Condition

The book contrasts risk-averse doctrine with the human condition, which thrives on connection and courage. Lévy warns that excessive focus on physical safety jeopardizes creating a sterile, dehumanized world. Lévy urges society to resist reducing life to mere survival, advocating instead for democratic renewal rooted in ethical vigilance. This requires challenging medical and technological overreach while preserving spaces for dissent and debate. Also noteworthy, in a society with an already decreasing birth-rate, COVID-19 further exacerbated the decline (Kearney & Levine, 2023).

Point-Counterpoint

The three books—The Exponential Age (2021) by Azeem Azhar, What Tech Calls Thinking (2020) by Adrian Daub, and The Virus in the Age of Madness (2020) by Bernard-Henri Lévy—each explore how rapid technological, ideological, and biological forces disrupt societal structures. However, their critiques and solutions diverge in scope and focus. Each grapples with the tension between progress and human agency, but through distinct lenses. Azhar emphasizes institutional lag in the face of exponential technology, Daub deconstructs Silicon Valley’s self- mythologizing, and Lévy warns against medical authoritarianism and societal division during crises. Each work intersects with Friedman’s socioeconomic and geopolitical philosophies surrounding technocratic oversight.

Power Dynamics and Institutional Failure

Azhar and Lévy highlight how concentrated power, whether in tech giants or medical authorities, manipulate systemic gaps. Azhar’s exponential gap theory argues that institutions fail to regulate tech-driven economic shifts. Which enables monopolies, erosion of labor rights, and hinders democratic oversight. Similarly, Lévy critiques the medical gaze surrounding COVID19. This involves unchallenged public health mandates and authoritarian overreach. Daub complements this by exposing how the technology industry’s narrative of inevitability masks corporate regulatory evasion as revolutionary progress. All three authors concur that unchecked power flourishes when society lacks frameworks to balance rapid change with ethical liability.

Mythmaking vs. Reality

Daub and Azhar explore narratives used to justify disruption. Daub traces technology’s reliance on recycled philosophies (i.e., Ayn Rand’s individualism, Marshall McLuhan’s medium- centralism) to describe exploitation, such as gig work framed as self-expression. Meanwhile, Azhar shows how technology firms promote marketing hype based on exaggerations, e.g., Gartner’s AI Hype Cycle. Each author reveals disconnects between technology’s perception and its impacts on society. Lévy extends this critique with examples about the COVID-19 pandemic. He rejects romanticization of government-mandated lockdowns. He also condemns the divide between privileged decision makers and those suffering economic or isolationist harm.

Human Agency in Crisis

While Azhar and Lévy advocate proactive solutions to systemic risks, their approaches differ. Azhar calls for collective action to bridge the exponential gap through a digital bill of rights, reformation of antitrust, and green-cautious technology investments. However, Lévy prioritizes philosophical resistance. This entails a revival of democratic engagement, rejection of survivalist paranoia, and reassertion of ethical obligations. Daub is skeptical of technology’s capacity for self-correction. Thus, he urges society to contend with industry’s selective amnesia. But, instead, to learn from mistakes of the past. All three books underscore the need to replace passive acceptance of disruption with deliberate oversight.

Divergent Scopes of Critique

Azhar’s work is macroeconomic and geopolitical, analyzing how computing, energy, biology, and manufacturing are reshaping society. Daub’s focus is cultural, dissecting technology’s intellectual pretensions and their social costs. Lévy’s critique is existential, associating pandemic responses to a broader erosion of humanistic values. Yet he overlaps Daub’s analysis of technology’s mimetic desire and mirrors Azhar’s warnings about splinternet fragmentation. While Lévy’s warnings about isolationism resonate with Azhar’s observations on declining global cooperation. Together, they describe the world’s struggles in reconciling progress. Each author agrees that solutions require ingenuity and a reaffirmation of humanity.

Public Reception of Works

The Exponential Age

When released, Azeem Azhar’s The Exponential Age was met with commendation for its well-reasoned analysis, relevance, and constructive outlook (Smith P. , 2021). Azhar’s book is considered a significant contribution to the public discourse on technology’s role in shaping the future. It offers a roadmap to navigate exponential change. His work is accessible and relevant to a broad audience (Turck, 2022). Reviewers highlight his ability to synthesize multiple disciplines (e.g., physics, economics, political science) (Rotman, 2021).

What Tech Calls Thinking

Adrian Daub’s What Tech Calls Thinking was well-received as a rigorous critique of Silicon Valley’s ideological base. Critics value the book for its historical and philosophical insights. Daub recommends the book to readers seeking to understand the myths and ideas shaping culture and technology (Adams, 2020). Though, it received criticism for its academic perspective (Seidl, 2020), and being too broad with fundamental concepts (Lundblad, 2021).

The Virus in the Age of Madness

While Bernard-Henri Lévy’s earlier works were often criticized for factual inaccuracies, misuse of sources, and grammatical mistakes, Virus in the Age of Madness has received approval from critics and appeal from readers (Smith B. , 2021). Some reviewers focus on the book’s argumentative style, rhetoric, contradictions, and philosophical questions (Kirkus Reviews, 2020). In retrospect, Lévy’s criticisms are exacerbated with the Trump White House’s recent claims the virus’s origins (WhiteHouse.gov, 2025). Moreso, with recent claims about the Biden administration’s efforts to suppress evidence about the pandemic’s origins and engage in a campaign of “delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness” (Rubin, 2025) (para. 5).

Friedman Intersections

Azhar

Azhar’s work on the exponential pace of technological change and the institutional lag thereof relates to Friedman’s insights on socioeconomics and the challenges that emerged in the US post WWII with a technocratic governance absorbed with theory instead of pragmatism. Both highlight the need for adaptive, accountable institutions capable of managing rapid change to prevent social and political crises. Moreso, Azhar’s exponential gap reflects the widening divide Friedman describes in his institutional and industrial cycles.

Daub

Daub’s work relates to Friedman’s by critically examining the ideological and institutional forces that shape contemporary technological and political power. Both highlight the risks posed by technocratic and neoliberal elites who promote narratives of inevitability that obscure democratic deficits. Moreso, by promoting individualism that masks social inequalities. Their combined insights deepen understanding of how cultural mythology and institutional dynamics interact to influence governance and societal outcomes in the age of rapid technological change.

Lévy

Lévy’s work relates to Friedman’s by providing a philosophical and political critique of institutional overreach and the resulting democratic crises during the pandemic. Both call for renewed representative oversight and ethical vigilance to counterbalance the dominance of shortsighted expert authority in times of societal upheaval. Lévy emphasizes the danger of infallible scientific consensus, which stifles debate and accountability. Friedman similarly notes that reliance on expert authority without checks and balances generates political divide.

Key Takeaways

The Exponential Age by Azeem Azhar, What Tech Calls Thinking by Adrian Daub, and The Virus in the Age of Madness by Bernard-Henri Lévy each examine the impact of rapid change on society—whether technological, ideological, or biological. Despite their differing subjects, all three books converge to circumvent disruptive forces at play against society through ethical vigilance and collective action.

Rapid Change Outpaces Institutions

Azhar’s The Exponential Age highlights the widening divide between technological innovation and society’s ability to adapt its laws, institutions, and cultural norms. However, there is a lag in this adaptation (i.e., the exponential gap) which results in rising inequality, unchecked corporate power, and systemic vulnerabilities. The gap can be seen in the gig economy, data privacy, and pandemic responses. Azhar calls for collective action and new frameworks to ensure that the benefits of exponential technologies are broadly shared. Moreso, to ensure that these technologies do not entrench the power of large technology corporations.

Tech Mythology and Accountability

Daub’s What Tech Calls Thinking dissects how the technology industry constructs selfserving myths. In other words, repacking old ideas as revolutionary, promoting narratives of inevitable progress, and glorifying individualism. This mythology obscures historical context, limits accountability, and perpetuates privilege (or lack thereof). This is articulated in the gig economy and college dropout examples. Finally, Daub warns that technology’s selective amnesia and platform primacy enable exploitation, devalue labor, and allow companies to evade responsibility for societal harms.

Authority, Freedom, and Human Values in Crisis

Lévy’s The Virus in the Age of Madness critiques the elevation of medical authority and the reduction of life to biological survival during the COVID-19 pandemic. He warns that unchecked medical and technological power can erode democratic debate, civil liberties, and ethical engagement. Lévy rejects the romanticization of lockdowns, instead calling for pragmatic, humane reactions. He calls for responses that prioritize social bonds, intellectual life, and global responsibility to the vulnerable.

Shared Themes and Contrasts

All three books caution against the dangers of unchecked power within technology corporations, medical authorities, or platform owners. They also express warning against the erosion of democratic oversight and ethical responsibility. Each author emphasizes the importance of historical awareness and critical thinking. Moreso, they highlight the need to resist narratives that frame disruption as inevitable or virtuous.

While Azhar is optimistic about the potential for society to shape technological outcomes through policy and collective action, Daub is more skeptical of the technology industry’s willingness to correct itself. Lévy is concerned about the loss of humanistic values in the face of crisis. However, the books collectively argue for the reclamation of agency to ensure that progress serves the betterment of society. The authors call upon individuals, communities, and institutions to impose moral foundations. Rather than reinforcing privilege, isolation, or authoritarian control.

Concluding Thoughts

In summary, the analysis and contrast between The Exponential Age, What Tech Calls Thinking, and The Virus in the Age of Madness reveal three distinct but connected critiques of how modern society responds to rapid change. All three books criticize the consequences of rapid technological, ideological, and biological change. Moreso, each book intersects philosophies of Dr. Geroge Friedman. Azhar analyzes institutional lag and economic disruption—paralleling Friedman’s American institutional and industrial cycles. Daub dissects the cultural narratives and myths of the technology industry—paralleling Friedman’s geopolitical and institutional analysis of technocracy and neoliberalism. Lévy warns of the philosophical and ethical dangers of crisis-driven authority—paralleling Friedman’s political critique of technocratic overreach. While each book differs in scope, they emphasize the need for criticism, vigilance, and unity. And together, they seek to ensure progress serves humanity rather than entrenching power and inequality.

Appendices

Appendix A

Introduction

Brian Krebs’s New York Times bestseller, Spam Nation, is a gripping exposé of the sprawling, dangerous world of global cybercrime. He focuses on the networks and individuals behind spam, hacking, and online pharmacy scams. Through methodical investigative reporting, Krebs traces the rise, fall, and resurgence of what he calls the “digital mafia”—the underground networks responsible for email spam, malware, phishing, spyware, and especially rogue online pharmacies targeting Americans. His investigation delves into how these operations function, profiling the masterminds who run them and revealing the vast profits they make by stealing from unsuspecting people.

Insider Perspectives

Krebs’s narrative is strengthened by insider perspectives, thanks to his firsthand interviews and direct interactions with cybercriminals—sometimes traveling abroad and meeting figures like “Cosma” in person. He documents their rivalries, betrayals, and power struggles, offering a rare look into both the personalities fueling global spam and the technical infrastructure behind their schemes. Importantly, Krebs highlights the everyday impact of these crimes on Americans, exploring how individuals—sometimes out of desperation over high drug prices or embarrassment—become entangled in illicit online pharmacies. This puts not only their finances at risk but also their health, as unregulated and potentially dangerous medications are often peddled through these illegal channels. Even those who avoid opening suspicious emails can find themselves targeted, as spammers exploit vulnerabilities to gain entry into personal and business accounts using advanced hacking and phishing tactics.

White-Hat Hackers

The financial and safety toll substantiated in Spam Nation is staggering, with billions of dollars lost to fraud and genuine threats posed by toxic or ineffective drugs. Krebs demonstrates that cybercrime is not just a nuisance—it can endanger lives. His work combines deep technical research with persistent reporting. Krebs forges relationships not only with cybersecurity experts and white-hat hackers but also with cybercriminals themselves. His willingness to take personal risks results in exclusive stories and rare insights, often outpacing law enforcement efforts. He also scrutinizes how American companies respond to these threats, critiquing weak anti-spam and anti-phishing efforts and revealing how spammers sometimes manipulate or co-opt supposed safeguards.

Considerations

For readers concerned about their own safety, Krebs concludes Spam Nation with clear, practical advice. He urges people not to install unsolicited software, to remain wary of emails by not clicking links or opening attachments from unknown or unexpected senders, and to use strong, unique passwords—enabling multi-factor authentication whenever possible. Krebs emphasizes that everyone, regardless of their technical background, plays a role in safeguarding their digital life. He encourages personal vigilance, skepticism toward unsolicited offers, careful monitoring of finances, and the pursuit of legitimate sources for online purchases—especially when it comes to medication. While Krebs paints a vivid picture of the enormity and complexity of global cybercrime, he also offers hope, noting positive trends such as skilled talent moving into legitimate cybersecurity roles and the increasing effectiveness of defensive technologies. Spam Nation is ultimately both a true-crime thriller and an indispensable handbook for digital self-defense, reinforcing that informed vigilance is our best weapon against the ongoing threat of cybercrime.

In Closing

Ultimately, Brian Krebs’s Spam Nation investigates the criminal networks running global spam, hacking, and fake online pharmacies. Through firsthand reporting and interviews with insiders, Krebs reveals how these cybercriminals steal money, data, and even endanger lives by selling unsafe drugs. He describes the vast financial losses and personal risks ordinary Americans face, then offers practical advice for self-protection: be cautious with emails, use strong and unique passwords, and avoid suspicious online offers. Ultimately, the book is both a true-crime story and a guide to defending against digital threats.

Introduction

Johnson and Wetmore’s Technology and Society presents a central argument: technological change is shaped just as much by societal values as by practical, technical, or economic considerations. The book emphasizes that technological development never happens in isolation—decisions about which technologies to promote, design, or adopt are tightly linked to questions about whose values matter, what gets prioritized, and how social forces (from culture to regulation) drive or restrain innovation.

To guide technology for the better, Johnson and Wetmore stress that society must not treat technology as something separate or inevitable. Instead, they showcase how deeply interwoven technology and society are: people’s beliefs, values, and visions for the future shape technologies, just as technologies, in turn, reshape societies. Their curated selections invite readers to see themselves as active participants—both shaping and being shaped by technological systems—and to understand that influencing the direction of technology depends on critically reflecting on values, politics, and social dynamics as much as on technical feasibility.

Books Dimensions

Visions of the Future: It begins with essays and readings that depict both hopeful utopias and cautionary tales about technology’s possible trajectories. These visions are contrasted to highlight that how we imagine technology’s future guides real-world decisions about which paths to pursue or avoid.

Core Science and Technology Studies (STS) Theories: Johnson and Wetmore introduce key concepts from STS, such as social constructivism (the idea that society co-creates technology), actor-network theory (which treats humans and non-humans as interconnected actors), and path dependence (how early choices lock in future directions). These frameworks challenge the notion of technological determinism and show that choices and values matter at every stage.

Human Values in Technological Choices: The book underscores practical examples of how social and human values are embedded in technological design, use, and regulation. For instance, what counts as “safety,” “efficiency,” or “progress” can vary by culture, community, or context, and these contested definitions shape the nature and impact of technological change.

Race, Gender, and Technology: Addressing a gap in earlier thinking, many readings specifically illustrate the ways that race and gender intersect with technology. The book highlights how biases can be inadvertently (or deliberately) built into new systems, and how technologies often reflect—and reinforce—existing social hierarchies. These discussions clarify that issues like discrimination or inequity can be “coded in” to supposedly neutral tools.

Readings on Contemporary Sociotechnical Challenges: The concluding sections tackle pressing challenges in today’s world: cybersecurity, geoengineering, and especially the myth that technology is neutral. The editors argue—and select texts affirm—that solutions to such problems require more than technical fixes: they demand conscious engagement with social context, public values, and inclusive deliberation.

In Closing

In summary, Johnson and Wetmore’s overall message is made clear. Steering technology toward socially desirable ends is only possible when we recognize—through critical, interdisciplinary inquiry—that society and technology are fundamentally intertwined, and that all technological decisions necessarily involve choices about values, power, and justice.

Introduction

Born and raised in the picturesque region of Normandy, France, Patrice Bertrand always had a passion for science and technology. This led him to study chemistry at the University of Toulouse. During his undergraduate years, Patrice was known for his dedication and innovative thinking. He often spent long hours in the lab, experimenting with various chemical compounds and dreaming of making significant contributions to the field.

After completing his chemistry degree, Patrice decided to broaden his horizons by pursuing a business degree at the graduate level. He completed an Institut d’Administration des Entreprises (IPA) degree (equivalent to an MBA) in 1982 at Toulouse University of France. This period was not without its challenges. During this time, France required peacetime military conscription, and Patrice enlisted as an officer in the 35th Regiment d’Artillery Parachutist. The rigorous training and discipline of the military shaped his character, instilling in him a sense of duty, leadership, and perseverance.

Upon completing his military service, Patrice joined the French division of Exxon Chemical Company. For five years, he honed his skills in the corporate world, learning the intricacies of the chemical industry. Particularly, learning Information Technology (IT) and setting up information systems, e.g., Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. This is no small task because learning how to integrate and implement an ERP suited for specific business requires a significant amount of business and technical skills. From setting up the server and database to configuring the FICO and MRP modules requires
Information Systems skills and Business Process skills.

Equipped with this newly attained knowledge, Patrice yearned for new opportunities to integrate ERP systems. This was a time when the information age was at its inception. In pursuit of his dreams, he moved to the United States, where he spent the next decade working in various manufacturing companies and oversaw information system integrations. His adaptability and technical expertise earned him a reputation as a reliable and innovative professional.

In the early 2000s, Patrice saw an opportunity to make a significant impact. He partnered with Bameco Holdings, LLC, which owned Roll-Tech Molding Products, LLC (RMP), a green manufacturer of wheels and tires made from recycled materials. As the operations manager, Patrice was instrumental in streamlining processes, integrating an ERP, and improving product quality. When Bameco decided to sell Roll-Tech, Patrice seized the opportunity to purchase the company. Despite facing challenges in securing angel investors, he remained undeterred.

Upon gaining ownership of RMP, Patrice saw the opportunity to overhaul the company's digital prescence. When Bameco sold RMP, they cloned then split their enterprise-level ERP instance; which, at the time, was SAP ECC 6.0. After the split, this cloned instance of ECC 6.0 was no longer suiting RMP's needs. Therefore, Patrice, without an IT department at the time, began the journey of a green-field migration into a new ERP catered for small to medium sized manufacturing companies. The ERP he landed on was called Global Shop Solutions ERP. Global Shop consists of a large variety of modules. Initially Patrice setup the core functionality and master data, e.g., accounting, BOM, Routing. Afterward, I had the privilege to join the RMP team to setup the Planning & Scheduling, BI, CRM, and MRP modules. The ROI of these IT efforts paid off immediately, i.e., 40% reduction of production lead times, 25% increase in manufacturing performance, and 30% increase in sales.

Patrice’s determination paid off when he discovered various government grants and incentives for green manufacturers within the United States. These opportunities made the ownership of RMP enticing, and he eventually became the President/CEO and owner of the company. From 2005 to 2019, Patrice led RMP to new heights, increasing sales and expanding the company’s offerings. His leadership and vision transformed RMP into a successful and respected business. In 2019, Patrice saw another opportunity for growth and sold RMP to Impact Environmental Group of Illinois.

After selling RMP, he ventured into consulting for small businesses. With over 30 years of experience, he offers his expertise in manufacturing, general management, and mergers and acquisitions to companies in need. Patrice’s journey is a testament to his resilience, adaptability, and unwavering commitment to excellence. His story continues to inspire aspiring entrepreneurs and business leaders across North America and Western Europe.

Take Aways

Patrice Bertrand, with his extensive experience and successful entrepreneurial journey, offers the following advice to young entrepreneurs:

1. Embrace Challenges: Every obstacle is an opportunity to learn and grow. Face challenges head-on and use them as steppingstones to success. Success doesn’t come overnight. Stay committed to your goals, even when the going gets tough. Persistence and determination are key to overcoming setbacks.
2. Build Strong Relationships: Networking and building strong relationships with mentors, peers, and industry professionals can provide valuable support and insights. Collaboration often leads to new opportunities.
3. Learn ContinuouslyThe business world is dynamic, and continuous learning is essential. Stay updated with industry trends, acquire new skills, and seek knowledge to stay competitive. Patrice’s diverse journey into chemistry, business, and IT exemplifies these principles, and his advice can serve as a valuable guide for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Legacy

Patrice Bertrand’s legacy at Roll-Tech Molding Products, LLC (RMP) is one of environmental stewardship, innovation, and sustainable growth. His commitment to green manufacturing and innovative practices left a lasting impact on both the company and the ecosystem at large. Here are some key aspects of the legacy he left behind:

1. Environmental Sustainability: Patrice’s dedication to using recycled materials for manufacturing wheels and tires significantly reduced waste and promoted recycling. This not only minimized the company’s environmental footprint but also set a benchmark for other businesses in the industry to follow.
2. Innovation and Technology: Patrice’s focus on innovation led to the development of advanced manufacturing techniques, IT best practices, and eco-friendly products. His efforts in research and development not only improved product quality but also positioned RMP as a leader in green manufacturing.
3. Support for Small Businesses: After selling RMP, Patrice continued to support the community by offering consulting services to small businesses. His guidance helped many local entrepreneurs navigate challenges, grow their businesses, and adopt sustainable practices.
4. Mentorship and Leadership: Patrice’s leadership style emphasized mentorship and personal development. He nurtured a culture of continuous learning and professional growth within RMP, inspiring employees to strive for excellence and innovation.
5. Long-Term Vision: Patrice’s strategic vision for RMP ensured the company’s long-term success and sustainability. His forward-thinking approach and commitment to green manufacturing left a legacy of responsible business practices that continue to benefit the community and the environment.

Conclusion

Patrice Bertrand’s journey from Normandy to Hickory is a remarkable tale of resilience, innovation, and leadership. His unwavering commitment to excellence, environmental sustainability, and community engagement has left an indelible mark on the business world and the communities he served. From his early days as a chemistry student and military officer to his successful tenure as the President/CEO of Roll-Tech Molding Products, Patrice’s story is one of triumph over adversity and the relentless pursuit of his dreams.

Patrice Bertrand’s legacy is a testament to the positive impact that a dedicated and visionary leader can have on both a company and its community. His contributions to environmental sustainability, economic growth, and community well-being will be remembered and cherished for years to come.

Through his visionary leadership, Patrice transformed RMP into a beacon of green manufacturing, setting new standards for environmental responsibility and innovation. His legacy extends beyond the company, as he continues to inspire and mentor the next generation of entrepreneurs through his consulting work. Patrice’s story is a testament to the power of perseverance, adaptability, and a deep-rooted commitment to making a positive impact on the world. His journey serves as an inspiration to all who aspire to create meaningful change and leave a legacy.

Home and Host country considerations: What factors go into decisions about where to incorporate and where to operate a transnational corporation?

Upon inception of a transnational corporation, home and host country dynamics must be considered. Home-host country factors to consider include components such as market access, regulatory circumstances, labor costs, logistics, and political stability.

Regarding market access, a transnational corporation often considers w here to incorporate and operate based on access to target markets. Incorporation in a country may provide easier access to its domestic market, while operating in a host country can grant access to foreign markets. Legal and regulatory circumstances transnational corporations assess the legal and regulatory framework of both the home and host countries. Favorable regulations, tax incentives, and intellectual property protection can influence their decisions. Labor costs, including wages and benefits, vary between countries. Transnational corporations may incorporate in countries with lower labor costs while targeting markets with higher consumer purchasing power.

Regarding logistics, infrastructure, access to transportation, communication, and supply chain infrastructure is crucial. Transnational corporations often prefer host countries with well-developed infrastructure to streamline operations. Finally, political stability and government policies are essential considerations. Transnational corporations seek countries with stable governments to reduce political risks.

International law and the mitigation of investment risks: What legal instruments and recourses exist that might offset potential legal risks and how would a corporation go about using them?

Regarding the international law and the mitigation of investment risks, legal instruments available to mitigate investment risks include bilateral investment treaties, multilateral investment treaties, international arbitration agreements, and political risk insurance.

Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are a great way to assure a company a smooth transition into international status. These agreements between the two countries aim to protect foreign investments by ensuring fair treatment, dispute resolution mechanisms, and compensation in case of expropriation. Multilateral Investment Treaties are a similar means of reassurance for this transition. Organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional groups often offer investment protection agreements that can mitigate risks.

Regarding International Arbitration, transnational corporations can resort to international arbitration mechanisms such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to resolve disputes with host countries. Finally, Political Risk Insurance is a means of mitigation between a company and government which provides additional coverage under certain circumstances. Some governments or international agencies provide this type of insurance to protect a transnational corporation against losses due to political events or conflicts.

Pros and Cons

There are many advantages that can incur from corporate and state relations. These advantages include market access, regulatory influence, and infrastructure support.

Regarding market access, transnational corporations can benefit from favorable trade agreements and diplomatic relations between their home country and host country, facilitating market entry. Regarding regulatory influence, corporations may have a voice in shaping regulations and policies through lobbying efforts and partnerships with governments. Finally, regarding infrastructure support, governments often invest in infrastructure projects that benefit transnational corporations, such as ports or highways.

However, with these advantages come disadvantages between corporate and state relations. Potential disadvantages include regulatory challenges, political instability, and reputation risks.

Regarding regulatory challenges, close ties to governments can lead to regulatory scrutiny and potential conflicts of interest. Regarding political instability, if a transnational corporation is closely aligned with a government, it may face risks when that government experiences political instability. Finally, regarding reputation risks, a transnational corporation can face reputational damage if their relationship with a government is perceived as unethical or exploitative.

In summary, the decisions about where to incorporate and operate, the mitigation of investment risks, and the advantages/disadvantages of a corporation's relationship with governments are complex and multifaceted. Transnational corporations must carefully analyze these factors and develop strategies to navigate the dynamic international business landscape while complying with legal and ethical standards.

How do TikTok’s algorithms currently identify and filter content for censorship? What specific techniques (e.g., keyword filtering, image recognition) are involved in this process?

Algorithms act like expert librarians, organizing and linking users to content that matches their interests. This approach prevents users from being inundated with endless content, allowing them to quickly find what they enjoy. By doing so, algorithms help users discover valuable posts, connect with similar-minded people, and delve deeper into their interests. Also, like librarians, some social media algorithms intend to sway users away from certain content deemed inappropriate. Inappropriate either based on user profile attributes (e.g., age) or based on a higher level, system constraint, e.g., community guidelines. TikTok (2023) claims they use a combination of automated moderation technology and human reviewers to identify and filter content. The algorithms analyze keywords, images, titles, descriptions, and audio to detect violations of community guidelines. Content flagged by the system is then reviewed by human moderators to confirm if it breaches the guidelines.

Could you explain why algospeak works to bypass censorship algorithms? Are there specific weaknesses in content detection that make it easy to bypass?

Algospeak refers to the use of coded expressions, symbols, and euphemisms to evade automated moderation systems. It works because these algorithms often lack the ability to understand context and nuance. For example, replacing "sex" with "seggs" or "suicide" with "unalive" can bypass filters that are programmed to catch specific words. The primary weakness is that these algorithms are not sophisticated enough to interpret the intended meaning behind these alternative spellings.

What challenges do algorithms face when moderating content in a way that’s fair to users? Are there trade-offs between accuracy and the speed of content moderation?

As an enterprise systems architect working with a variety of big data science algorithms (e.g., linear regression, dimensionality reduction), I oversee algorithms facing several challenges, including understanding context and intent, cultural differences, and evolving language. There is often a trade-off between accuracy and speed. For instance, faster moderation may lead to more false positives or negatives, while more accurate moderation can be slower and resource intensive.

How effective is current AI at understanding context or intent behind words or images? For example, how do algorithms differentiate between harmful content and satire?

Current AI is still limited in its ability to understand context or intent. While it can recognize patterns and specific words, it struggles with nuances like satire, irony, or cultural references. This limitation can lead to both over-moderation (removing harmless content) and under-moderation (failing to catch harmful content).

What risks are associated with over-reliance on AI for censorship? How might this impact freedom of expression or create biases in what users see?

Over-reliance on AI for censorship can lead to inconsistent enforcement, censorship of legitimate content, and lack of transparency. It can also result in shadow banning, where content is subtly suppressed without the user's knowledge. Additionally, AI systems can be biased, reflecting the biases present in the training data. According to Patel, N. (2023), it is important for content creators to be cognizant and current on a platform’s specific guidelines and policies to avoid being shadow banned.

What improvements do you think could be made to content moderation algorithms? Could AI become more sensitive to cultural or contextual nuances in content?

Improvements could include better understanding of context, more transparent processes, and regular updates to keep up with evolving language. Incorporating user feedback and multilingual support can also enhance the effectiveness of these algorithms. Developing more sophisticated natural language processing (NLP) models that understand context and intent can reduce false positives and negatives. Generative AI can help in better understanding the context of content by generating potential interpretations of ambiguous posts. This can assist in distinguishing between harmful content and benign or satirical posts.

How do platforms balance user safety with freedom of expression when designing censorship algorithms? In your opinion, what ethical considerations should guide this balance?

Platforms aim to balance user safety and freedom of expression by setting clear community guidelines, using a combination of AI and human moderation, and providing users with the ability to appeal decisions. They also engage in continuous monitoring and updating of their algorithms to address emerging issues and ensure fairness.

What trends or advancements in AI might impact the future of algospeak and censorship? Is it likely that detection algorithms will adapt to the evolving nature of user-created algospeak?

Advancements in natural language processing (NLP) and contextual understanding could make it harder for algospeak to bypass censorship algorithms. Improved AI models that can better interpret nuances and cultural contexts may reduce the need for coded language. However, as AI becomes more sophisticated, so will the methods used to evade it.