In a column for The New Yorker, journalist Jia Tolentino argues that the current approach to technology resistance—framed almost exclusively as a series of individual lifestyle choices—is fundamentally flawed.
She contends that while people focus on personal screen time and digital habits, the power imbalance between individuals and Big Tech remains unaddressed, suggesting that collective action is the only viable path to meaningful change.
The prevailing narrative of digital autonomy often centers on self-improvement. Tolentino points to the example of a 2022 report about Brooklyn teenagers who unplugged to read philosophy and whittle, noting that such personal gestures, while charming, do not challenge the structural grip of algorithmic systems.
Similarly, Briefly reported on the rise of the “Brick,” a device that forces phone users to block social media access during specific hours. While these tools shift a user’s focus from scrolling to reading, they function as private workarounds rather than systemic interventions.
The most significant shift toward collective pressure is emerging from the healthcare sector, where labor unions are actively challenging the integration of artificial intelligence. National Nurses United (N.N.U.) has spearheaded nationwide demonstrations against Palantir, a company heavily involved in hospital scheduling and assessment technologies. The union’s primary objection is not the outright ban of all digital tools, but rather the unchecked “supremacy” of AI in clinical settings.
The conflict between labor and technology intensified as hospitals implemented sophisticated surveillance measures. According to a report by CalMatters, nurses at Kaiser faced new monitoring layers, including AI programs designed to assess their empathy and vocal tone during patient interactions.
The N.N.U. highlights that these tools often rely on flawed data; for instance, an AI might misinterpret a patient’s casual comment about yardwork as an indicator of opioid misuse, leading to inaccurate medical records.
The shift from human-managed schedules to AI-driven systems has further strained the workplace. Maharaj noted that while human managers could account for individual circumstances, AI-driven scheduling is designed to prioritize efficiency above all else. Maybe you can look at efficiency when you’re looking at widgets,
Maharaj told The New Yorker.
But when you’re talking about patients, and you’re talking about the relationship between a nurse and her patient—that is extremely important, and that is reserved for the judgment of the nurse, and not some technology that is going to override their judgment.
The debate over AI in medicine mirrors broader concerns about privacy and the commodification of human interaction. Because AI tools often monitor patient-provider conversations, questions regarding where that data is stored and how it is protected remain largely unanswered. The N.N.U. maintains that the preservation of the nurse-patient relationship is a non-negotiable standard that technology should support, not replace.
Ultimately, the argument for collective action suggests that if society wishes to reclaim its relationship with technology, it must move past the idea that freedom is merely a question of willpower.
Whether through labor organizing or potential legislative action—some proponents suggest parallels to tobacco-era regulations—the focus is shifting from individual screen-time reduction to the regulation of corporations that deploy these tools. As the influence of algorithms continues to permeate essential services, the question remains whether collective advocacy can effectively curb the reach of automated decision-making in our daily lives.
