When Technology Becomes the Target: The Rise of Anti-Tech Extremism

A man throws a Molotov cocktail at the home of OpenAI's CEO. Gunshots are fired at a lawmaker's house over a data center. Extremist groups with names like the Volcano Group are forming across Europe and Latin America — all united by one thing: opposition to AI and technology.

Jay Solomon and Hagar Chemali sit down with Dr. Mauro Lubrano, lecturer at the University of Bath and author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism, to unpack a threat most people never saw coming.

They discuss how anti-tech violence has roots going back to the Luddites and the Unabomber, why fear of AI is now radicalizing a new generation, and where democracies should draw the line between legitimate dissent and terrorism.

Find Dr. Lubrano's work at the University of Bath or on LinkedIn. His book Stop the Machines is available on major digital platforms. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:00

I'm Jay Solomon. And I'm Hagar Shimalli. And welcome to the Threat Podcast. Every week, we'll analyze and discuss the most pressing, yet not always so visible, threats to global security and the movements and ideologies that fuel extremism and terrorism.

SPEAKER_01 0:18

We'll take listeners to the front lines of these battles, both at home and abroad, and we'll talk with the key players in law enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy, and academia who are working to counter these threats.

SPEAKER_03 0:33

Welcome to the Threat Podcast. I'm Jay Solomon. And I'm Hagar Shimali. Today we're going to discuss a whole new kind of terrorism called anti-technology extremism, which is essentially where opposition to technological advances, like in AI and data centers, leads to forms of political violence and terrorism. U.S. and European law enforcement agencies are increasingly concerned about this kind of extremism as a potential driver of political violence and terrorism globally. In early April, a 20-year-old Texas man threw a Molotov cocktail at the San Francisco home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman before threatened to attack the company's headquarters. The same week, 13 gunshots were fired at the home of an Indiana lawmaker after he supported the construction of a $500 million data center in his district. A note reading No Data Center was left at the scene. Extremist organizations, meanwhile, with names like the Volcano Group and ITF have formed in Europe and Latin America to try and stop the rapid advancement of AI and other disruptive technologies in their communities. Hagar, this is a bit of a shift from the type of extremism uh we've been talking about. It's got a terminator feel to it. What do you think? This is uh an interesting change for us.

SPEAKER_01 1:58

Yeah, I this is so not something I would have ever expected or or seen, you know, for our future, for the way things would go, that this could be so real. And it feels like we're at the beginning of it. Like the thing I kept thinking about when we were preparing for the podcast today was do you remember at commencement this year at a number of universities across the country, you had students booing very loudly. Anytime anybody, a commencement speaker or an administrator or a dean at a at a school would say, you know, and you should all be careful because AI could take your jobs, or, you know, they would say something to this effect, or you should prepare yourselves to know AI or understand it because it's going to affect your careers. And there'd be loud boos. And it really, you know, you and I obviously didn't, we weren't in that generation. So we don't understand. Um, but I do fear that that kind of lays the foundation for this, right? There's this real genuine hatred and fear of this technology, and it is laying the foundation for extremism in a form of extremism I never thought I would see.

SPEAKER_03 3:05

Yeah. And it is a big shift. I remember when I was graduating Berkeley at the time, it was everyone was going into tech and it was so optimistic. This is, we're all going to get rich and everyone's going to be happy. So yeah, it's it's a big shift, and it is scary. Well, to dive into this more today, we have an incredible guest with us. Mauro Lubrano is a lecturer on international relations at the University of Bath, even though he's in an Italy native in the UK and earned his PhD from the University of St. Andrews. His research focuses primarily on terrorism and political violence and how it innovates and evolves. And he's one of a very small number of academics who have begun focusing on the advent of this anti-tech extremism. So, Marrow, welcome.

SPEAKER_02 4:11

Thanks. Thanks for the invite. It's great to be here.

SPEAKER_03 4:14

I mean, can we just start? I think most of our listeners, as even Hagar and I, probably didn't really think or haven't heard of the term anti-tech terrorism. Can you describe how this phenomenon came to be and how wide-scale it is?

SPEAKER_02 4:30

Yes. Um, thank you. So um, although it's now sort of coming to the fore and it's a more prominent phenomenon, this is this is something that's been going on for a while, for many decades, in fact. I mean, I'm assuming most uh people will remember the Unabomber, Theodor Kaczynski, and that it's sort of, if you want, a um a past example of of what's going on now, or to a to it you know, in a different way. But uh but again, opposition to technology is not something that starts with AI. This is the phenomenon that predates AI, predates everything that's going on now. Uh, we can find roots of this phenomenon uh you know, if we go even if we go back a few centuries. But if we want to focus on the contemporary era, uh we can see how opposition to technology has developed since the industrial revolution as a phenomenon that is mostly um about three types of concerns: material concern, an ontological concern, and an existential concern. What do these three terms mean? First one means that opposition to technology is motivated by uh concerns regarding um uh job losses, economic displacements, and so on. We can think of, for example, the Loddites, the 19th-century Lodites, a group of uh skilled artisans who uh um protested the introduction of new machinery in the production process in England. And then there's ontological concerns. And what do I mean by it? I mean the concerns regarding human identity, human agency, decision making, uh, even concerns about uh what technology does to humanity on a spiritual level. And finally, we have existential concerns, which are sort of self-explanatory, right? There's this idea that technology will inevitably lead to uh the extinction of humanity, that technology poses an existential threat to the survival of humanity and also survival of the planet. Now, what's important to understand when we talk about anti-technology extremism is that we're not talking about opposition to a specific technology. We're talking about opposition to technology as a system. A system where it's basically impossible to distinguish between good and bad technology. So the same technologies that allow us to live longer, uh, live healthier, and so on, are also the same technologies that uh are responsible for the extraction, extraction of resources, the management of nature, the division of labor, the oppression of subordinate classes, and so on. So it's impossible to distinguish between these two between good and bad technology, because technology, again, is a system where all parts are dependent on one another. This is quite important because it means that this system cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed. And here we see uh how these sort of uh ideas are already linked to a more like uh revolutionary approach, uh, if you want. Now, how widespread is it? Now, this is a good question. We can see manifestations of anti-technology violence or anti-technology extremism in Europe, in North America, in South America, in Central America. In terms of hard numbers, we simply don't have any for a specific reason. Despite being an old phenomenon, despite having been around for many decades, anti-technology extremism has often operated uh on a very low level. Low-level sabotage, low-level attacks on specific individuals. You've mentioned the attack on Sam Altman. We've had we have uh precedence these attacks, we have past examples of these attacks that, however, targeted less prominent individuals. So we, you know, most of us didn't didn't hear about them. Because of this, and because of the fact that anti-technology extremism tends to emerge and um tends to emerge with within different ideological milieurs and combine with different ideological milieurs, in many cases, this piece has been examples of anti-technology violence have been simply miscategorized. I'll give you an example. In 2012, in Italy, where I grew up, um there was an attack against the CEO of a nuclear engineering group. Um this attack was perpetrated by two instruction anarchists who knecked the CEO. Uh, and then later, when they were in during the trial, they explicitly stated that they did this because of his role, because of the CEO's role in spreading nuclear technology around the world. Now, this attack, if you look at many databases on terrorism, political violence, is constantly referred to as instructional anarchists, which is true. It is an instructional anarchist attack, but it also has a specific anti-technology component that many other instructionally anarchist attacks don't have. So this is one of the reasons why we don't really have a clear idea of the distribution of these attacks, because it's a sort of a, again, combining with different ideologies, it presents itself as, you know, as part of different campaigns. But it is important to understand and isolate the anti-technology component of this.

SPEAKER_01 9:45

I'm trying to understand a little bit, based on everything you just said, if given and given your research and background, it we're trying to understand how how large of a threat is this? How prevalent is it? What is the scale of it, right? Like, so you mentioned we've mentioned now the grenade attack in San Francisco on Sam Altman's home, the uh shooting residents of the Indian lawmakers, Jay mentioned, uh, who supports data centers. Now you've highlighted some actually older examples that we might not have actually realized, classify in this world. So now it kind of feels like we're at the tip of the iceberg. Um, how big of a problem is this? And, you know, how much of a threat? How are there other examples that you can think of in general, just to kind of highlight to us how significant it is? And have we kind of been asleep at the wheel? Like because it hasn't had a name until now?

SPEAKER_02 10:43

Yes. So um, even just looking at the last year, there's dozens of examples of violence against technology, against infrastructure, and against those who represent. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

That's a lot.

SPEAKER_02 10:55

For example, like some of them are quite prominent, some of them like relatively small scale. I give an example of a small scale one. Um in April, uh, there was an attack against the technological hub of a university in Pisa, uh, Italy. But even going uh even looking at elsewhere in Europe, there was a prominent attack in January carried out by the Vulcan Gruppe against the electric grid in Berlin. That attack left thousands without electricity for hours, if not days, and obviously costed a lot of money to a lot of companies. The Vulkan Group is a is is a Germany-based, um relatively obscure group. We don't really know much about them. No members have ever been apprehended, so we don't really know much about them. But they've been responsible for many similar operations, both against infrastructure, but also against specific companies. In 2024, they um they conducted an attack, a sabotage attack against the Tesla uh giga factory in Gruneide, Berlin, halting production for days and costing uh millions to the company. Um there also uh a similar uh similar attacks have been conducted last year against different um targets uh linked to Tesla across Europe. Anarchists uh in Europe launched this campaign called Welcome Spring Burner Tesla, and you had several dealership and and production facilities across Europe targeted in a series of uh relatively uncoordinated but converging uh clandestine attacks. Um there's also been attacks on data centers. Um, and here it's good to distinguish between the surface-level protest against data centers and the more clandestine uh uh campaigns carried out by um by extremist networks against uh infrastructure. Uh so attacks carried out in France against data centers. Often these data centers are targeted, in particular when they're linked to uh uh issues of militarism. For example, the one targeted in uh in France uh was in November 2025, was linked to allegedly, according to the to the attackers, um, communique was linked to uh the war in the war in the Middle East, was linked to the Israel, uh Israel and so on. Uh there's also been more symbolic attacks, sabotages during, for example, the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Milan, and during the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics in Paris two years ago, and during the Cannes Film Festival. So attacks that were conducted during those events, not really to uh cause disruption, uh simply to cause disruption, but to uh send a message and to uh send a powerful uh symbolic uh uh message to uh to the system, to like-minded individuals and so on. So following kind of the good old-fashioned ideas of propaganda of the deed.

SPEAKER_03 13:59

Can you give us a sense of the organizational structure of this? You mentioned this volcano group in Europe. There's something I've read about in Latin America called ITS. I don't, I haven't read or heard that any of these recent attacks in the U.S. have are linked to a particular organization or structure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And certainly in the US, which has, you know, we've already have a high surge in kind of political violence, gun, gun violence. It looks like we'd be particularly vulnerable. But yeah, could you talk a bit more about the organizational structure behind this anti-tech movement and like who are who are these people and could it spread into the US? Or maybe it's already here?

SPEAKER_02 14:44

Yes, I think to do this, we need to like take a step back and and and look at again anti-technology extremism as a whole. Uh so I've mentioned before how anti-technology extremism is essentially uh against technology as a system. And the the ultimate goal, the ultimate um objective that underlies anti-technology extremism is to the eradication of this system, is the eradication of technology um as a whole. So it's an ideological current that pursues the eradication of technology and the collapse of the system that technology uh sustains. This is quite a flexible framework that can be adapted to different agendas, different uh ideological backgrounds, right? And in fact, we do see anti-technology ideas emerging across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right, to environmental, to eco-extremist movements, and so on. And you could easily imagine how this could even be be uh our anti-technology ideas could even form within a more religious framework. Uh, I mean, I think some people must have must have uh read the letter the Pope wrote a few weeks ago on AI. So that definitely is like first or grand there. Not not I'm not trying to imply that that letter or the Pope are linked to anti-technology extremism. This is just to say that they're quite widespread ideas and that they combine with different with different uh belief systems. But despite all of these differences, if we look at the extremist um anti-technology extremism, we can identify four common characteristics. The first one is this idea of technology as a system, as a mega machine, as many anti-technology extremists put it. And this mega machine has three manifestations. The physical, which is the technologies we interact with every day, computer, laptops, wires, cables, and so on. The ideological, the idea that progress uh must be pursued indefinitely because it can only do good things for society. And finally, the human component. So humans are reduced to cogs in the machine and therefore can be targeted with violence if you want to stop this mega machine. The second component of the second common uh characteristics that emerge across all of these uh anti-technology groups is that anti-technology extremism is seen as something um that can preserve and defend both humanity and the planet. So there's an idea there that the stakes could not be higher. This is an existential threat to both us and the planet, and therefore, anti-technology extremism uh emerges to defend um humans and the planet. There's also a sense of urgency in all of this, which is the third common characteristic. So a sense of uh apocalyptic, uh an apocalyptic mindset underlying all of this. So the sense of urgency that things are about to happen which will change the world in ways that we cannot even imagine, and therefore we need to up up uh uh upgrade our commitment to stopping the machine. Finally, and here is where we link all of this to your question, there's an idea that to fight the machine, you have to adopt a leaderless and accelerationist fight. What does this mean? Let's start from the latter term. Accelerationism, which requires quite a widespread uh strategy among many terrorist organizations these days. In the context of anti-technology extremism, it means you have to hit where it hurts. Basically, instead of striking random technologies that have little to no strategic meaning for the system, you have to strike the system where you are more likely to produce uh harm, like catastrophic and uh you know cascade effect. So, which is why we see attacks on infrastructures, why we see attacks on electric grids, why we see attacks on uh data centers and so on. So essentially it's about understanding what are the pillars of the system and striking the pillars to make the system collapse. And so there's a there's an attempt to hasten this collapse. And this is done in a leaderless uh way. Now, leaderless lead leaderlessness is again quite uh widespread as a feature among many uh contemporary extremists and terrorist organizations, it essentially means adopting decentralized structures that do not rely on any hierarchy of any any hierarchy or network of support to minimize the chances of being infiltrated and therefore dismantled, uh which in a way increases the group's resilience. Now, within anti-technology, many anti-technology groups, uh the adoption of a leaderless uh structure is not only uh because of the increased resilience that this uh this structure affords, but is also because it reflects certain um ideological uh assumptions. To be anti-technology is to be anti-civilization within the extremist uh sphere. To be anti-technology means that you are against the entire system. So to be against the system, it means that you're also against a civilization that it's based on it. This means that many groups, especially in the anarchist and eco-extremist sphere, will tend to um will tend to avoid any form of hierarchical structure, also because these hierarchical structures reproduce the logics of the system themselves. So if you want to get rid of the system, you also have to get rid of those uh practices that could reproduce the system even on a small scale level. This is why many of these groups, again, don't uh don't uh don't adopt uh hierarchical structures, but also why many of these groups don't really have plans for the future. They simply are focused on destroying the system in the present. Now, when it comes to could this reach the US, now one of the one of the one of the many ideological milieurs that displays anti-technology ideas is so-called eco-fascism, which is something that uh that is quite widespread in the US. Um the the attack in in San Diego from a few weeks ago, if you look at the manifesto, there are references to AI as well there.

SPEAKER_03 21:10

Now this is the uh the attack on the mosque in San Diego.

SPEAKER_02 21:14

Yes, exactly. So obviously we do see a mismatch between the anti-technology narrative and the practice of these groups, because obviously they didn't attack uh technology. But it's interesting to see that there's that component there as well of anti-technology. This is something we've seen uh in past um uh eco-fascist uh attacks as well, where in the in the manifesto you you you did see references to automation, AI, and all sorts of different things related to technologies, even though they were still targeting religious and ethnic minorities. So there's there's a bit of a mismatch between practice and theory there. But um but this is why these groups again don't have don't have hierarchical structures, don't have official leaders, they have more like you know informal leaders or Influencers, if you want. They operate ironically online and uh speak to each other online through communique, manifests, and so on. But they probably don't even know each other. Like if you put two of them in the same room, they probably wouldn't even know, wouldn't even know each other.

SPEAKER_03 22:17

When you you talked about this volcano group in Europe, do they claim responsibility in some amorphous way, or do they not even like they'll do an attack and I don't know people find out it's the volcano group?

SPEAKER_02 22:31

This is this is actually a very important uh question because um and and it leads back to some practices within instruction anarchist groups. Now, some insurrection anarchist groups do use acronyms or do use groups' names and will claim attacks. So that you know, obviously it's based on the principle of direct action. So whoever is you know uh sympathetic or with these ideas or affiliated with the movement will carry out an action on their own, you know, and independently with the means that they have at their disposal and when and where they want, and then will upload a communique explaining why they carried out the attack, uh, the rationale, and inviting, calling for more attacks on these targets. Um, so the Worcing Group is one of those groups that claims attacks, that puts out communiques and signs them. There are other anarchist networks that do not believe in using acronyms or names because they think that that essentially leads to a politics of representation which they don't want because they prefer like a more direct involvement. So it leads back to some like debate, theoretical debates within anarchism. But um, but the short answer is many of them do claim, some not, because again, there is there is a difference in opinion on whether attacks should be claimed or not.

SPEAKER_01 23:51

It's just fascinating to me because, well, first, Mauro, you're blowing my mind in many ways, but but also because, and I don't mean to compare this at all, but because the Bitcoin community is very, they also share these beliefs, these kind of this worldview belief of, you know, no leader, a lot of it is anonymous, you know, they operate online. Obviously, they're not they're not um pursuing terrorist attacks, but so I don't mean to make that kind of comparison, but they are also trying to revolutionize uh and and dis disrupt entire systems. Um, can you can you unpack a little bit more further the uh the role of the unibomber and um in in this, right? How you know can you explain why he remains an important figure in this movement?

SPEAKER_02 24:40

Yes. Um I always make this, you can call it a joke if you want, but I'm not even sure if it's a joke. I think it's actually quite quite true. Now, I always say this to be anti-technology, an anti-technology extremist today, without engaging in some way with uh with Kaczynski, with the Unibomber, it's like being like being you know in the 70s in a Marxist-Leninist organization without engaging at all with Marx. Like you just have to, you know, in another engage with this figure, engage with the intellectual heritage of this figure. The unabomber, of course, started his one-man war against against against technology in 1978 and until it was apprehended in the mid-90s. And before being arrested, he produced this manifesto, the famous manifesto of the Unabomber, uh Industrial Society and its future. Now, back then, of course, like people did engage with it, but it's quite remarkable how essentially 20, 25 years later, um, this manifesto became very influential again, and a lot of people started reading it. And again, we do see how groups of with completely different ideological backgrounds uh started quoting and engaging and critiquing and getting inspiration uh from Kaczynski. Now we see anarchists talking about Kaczynski, we see the far right uh considering Kaczynski as one of, you know, one of the uh most influential saints within this saints culture that characterizes far-right extremism. We do see eco-extremists, like you mentioned earlier, the individual the individualist standing towards the wild, ITS, this this this Mexican group. We do see this group engaging uh with you know both theory and practice from Kaczynski. Essentially, what Kaczynski, the essentially Kaczynski, you can consider it like the, if you want, the father of contemporary anti-technology extremism. He is the one who has developed a vocabulary, that a vocabulary that a lot of contemporary anti-technology extremism uh use or have to deal with, uh, you know, even in explaining why they're not using it. Um these ideas resonate a lot with both violent extremists and individuals that do not engage in violence. And one of the one of the main contributions is this idea of technology as a system. As technology is something where it's not good or bad, it's a system. It cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed. These uh lessons also uh provide justifications when it comes to resorting to technology to destroy technology. Kaczynski made these theoretical differences between small-scale and organization-dependent technology, which essentially provide again an ideological justification for retaining a certain level of technology and also for using technology in the fight against technology. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that all of his lessons are considered valuable. And again, there's many aspects on which all groups disagree with him. I'll give you an example. Kaczynski argued that it's crucial for anti-technology, for an anti-technology revolution to have what he calls, you know, professional, like anti-tech warriors. Essentially, although he doesn't use the term, he was referring to a revolutionary vanguard, like the classic Leninist revolutionary vanguard, a group of professional revolutionaries dedicated entirely and only on the on the on the fight against technology. Uh, and for example, anarchists completely reject this idea because they reject the idea that you know the vanguardism is a bad thing for anarchists. Um there's also other uh other other aspects on which um uh, for example, eco-fascists and and Kaczynski uh will disagree. What's what I always find a remarkable thing is that all of these groups uh engage with him and admit to having learned something from him uh and will disagree in other cases, but then before before dying, he died three years ago, uh Kaczynski, before he passed away, he he wrote about all of these groups and essentially critiqued all of them. In many cases, he said that they completely misread his work, they didn't really understand what he was talking about. He talked about ITS, saying that they had a kindergarten level of understanding of revolution. He criticized um eco-fascism uh for making for placing so much emphasis on the on you know on white supremacy and so on, which wasn't really an important thing uh uh for Kaczynski. And and also uh completely disagrees with we disagreed with intersectionary anarchists about pretty much everything they said or did. So it was pretty much a one, a one-way relationship where all these groups are like looking up to Kaczynski and trying to draw inspiration, or learned from maybe his mistakes or his successes and disagreeing and agreeing. But yeah, the Unabomba wasn't really reciprocating that.

SPEAKER_03 29:52

What seems kind of dangerous, particularly about this anti-tech movement is that it attracts people from across the political spectrum, people you wouldn't think would have any commonality whatsoever. Can you speak a bit more to the these kind of strange bedfellows who are attracted from you talked about it a bit, some from the theological, some from the humanistic, some from just the kind of economic side of it. But can you talk about this, how there this draws people from across the political spectrum?

SPEAKER_02 30:28

Yes. Um I argue that one of the most, if not the most remarkable, uh characteristics of anti-technology extremism as an ideological current is that it's inherently incredibly flexible. You can compare it to some extent as the opposition to capitalism. We have seen many different expressions of oppositions to capitalism, right? Uh from left to right, to religious, and so on. Uh so it's it's it's created, it's engendered like a multifaceted response. And the same with technology, really. We see how anti-technology extremism can be combined with class struggle. And here the idea is that technology essentially uh allows a uh what the so-called technolites to uh build a new authoritarian society uh thanks to technology. Uh uh, what's been called by some anti-technology extremists the totalitarianism of the machines. So uh it can be combined with a class drival, but it can also be combined with extremist interpretations of deep ecology. So the idea that you know uh humans are not the most important uh living creature on earth, and actually all living creatures have the same equal worth. Um, and this is the idea that underlies um ITS, and ITS actually consider themselves as part of nature, and they they they view wild nature uh and technology trapped in this cosmic conflict where one cannot try without harming the other. So it can combine with this sort of more uh environmentalist perspectives, uh the defense of nature, the defense of uh animals, and so on. It of course is not in, you know, what I'm I'm not referring to contemporary radical environmentalist movements and mass movements, I'm referring to this, you know, more extremist uh versions like ITS. But it also combines with white supremacy in the case of uh, again, the eco-fascist, if you think that within eco-fascism and within the the work of some of its most influential uh figures, like Pentelinkola, uh a Finnish um eco-fascist, technology is viewed as this force of modernity that has destroyed the ties between nature and nation. So where whereby the idea is that that nature, the environment is is it's it's the most important element that characterizes the nation. And so if we destroy the environment, that also has repercussions on on this idea of the nation. So it's quite flexible in many ways, and it allows for like dangerous synergies to emerge and allows for this framework to be adapted to different contexts and different campaigns and different agendas and different ideological backgrounds, which is why we've seen, like again, in Europe, uh it's more linked to uh insurrectionary anarchist ideas, in South Central America, it's more linked to this eco-extremist phenomenon, and in other parts, like uh then North America, but North Europe as well, it's more linked to eco-fascist ideas. So it's it's this allows it to emerge within all of these different contexts. Now, at the same time, we do live in an era where many terrorist organizations, terrorist individuals do show like multifaceted worldviews. And this allows again anti-technology uh ideas to to to have potential to combine with many different with any different ideas. Now, will there be the emergence of a more monolithic anti-technology or anti-AI movement? It's possible, but even if we look at what's going on now with all of this anti-AI backlash, we do see that it's always linked to certain uh to certain broader uh issues. Uh the environment, uh issues of you know, again, material concerns that can lead back to some ideas of of of class in a way, if you think of all this this this concerns about big tech and all of this. So it cannot, I would, I would, I would argue that it cannot really emerge in a vacuum. But because of this flexibility, it can emerge in very different contexts and in very different uh and and and and combine with many different ideological backgrounds.

SPEAKER_01 34:51

I want to shift the conversation a little bit toward how we solve this issue and the potential for regulation. You've written about this before. If the primary grievance of anti-tech terrorists is an unaccountable, globalized, quote-unquote, technological mega machine, how can sovereign states regulate cross-border tech entities like AI conglomerates, for example? How can they regulate them effectively enough to maintain institutional legitimacy while preventing radicalization?

SPEAKER_02 35:26

Yes, I think this is like a very important uh question and something that we need to get done, that we need to get right. I would I would argue that the like the response to anti-technology extremism requires a more of a whole of society kind of response. But obviously, governments and states have a crucial role to play. And I think the first thing is to clearly identify who the threat is and clearly distinguish between these anti-technology extremists who resort to violence and operate in a clandestine uh in a clandestine way from people who are demanding more accountability, more transparency, and more regulation when it comes to unchecked technological progress. Now, the thing is that as I was saying at the beginning, we still uh there are still like many things we don't know about this phenomenon. Uh we need to go back and get a better empirical understanding of it, the geographical distributions of the attack, uh, the operational patterns, and so on. But we also need to get a clear idea of who is populating this anti-tech space. Because many of the people populating this space do not embrace extremist goals, do not embrace extremist uh ideals, and do not use violence. So if we are to build an anti-tech extremist tract category, which uh, you know, as in recent news, there's been a discussion within US law enforcement, uh we are only to include those most violent factions in it. Because if we use this category to securitize individuals, networks, associations, groups, and so on that are demanding uh more accountability, transparency, and regulation, then essentially we are validating some of the narratives of anti-technology extremism. Uh, one of the main themes that constantly emerges within anti-tech extremist narratives is this idea of technology as per pervasive and pervasive surveillance and the technology as a means of repression, as a tool of repression. So we don't need to validate these narratives and we need to sear clear from these practices. So isolate the extremist violent factions and engage with the ones employing democratic means and demanding more accountability, transparency, and regulation. Now, this is very important because if we deny this political opportunity to these groups, this political opportunity to shape progress, then what we run, we run the risk of pushing some individuals, not all of them of course, towards this ideological container that already exists there, which is anti-technology extremism. And I would also argue that those who are more negatively affected by progress deserve a saying in how progress is shaped in the first place. Now, obviously, in terms of isolating and engaging with these groups, there's a lot that governments can do, but there's also a lot that governments cannot do because, again, as you mentioned, this is a like global phenomenon. And this is where we go back to this idea of a whole of society approach. Um this requires also tech companies, people who are investing in technology, people who are shaping technologies, to be involved in these discussions and to be involved in these discussions in a way that uh includes, again, people who are people who have legitimate and real concerns about technology, because the problem is that many, the overwhelming majority of people who have concerns about technology have concerns that are real and legitimate. They're not concerns about the mega machine, they're concerns about resources, their environment, their jobs, and so on. So, again, neglecting or worse, securitizing these forms of tech dissent just risks denying these people the political opportunity to shape progress and in turn push them towards this ideological continuance. So, how do we prevent further radicalization by addressing the root causes of the concerns that people have about technology? And this is something we can do. It's something that only requires the political will to do it.

SPEAKER_03 39:54

I'm curious, are there any countries or leaders or writers or company individuals do you think have kind of shown a way to balance all this that have innovative ideas about how to kind of integrate technology without causing this backlash?

SPEAKER_02 40:16

Well, I'm a bit of a pessimistic person by nature. I'm not sure uh if I can identify many. Uh there's definitely like people like on the, you know, like people have been writing about this. Uh and there's uh there's been a few books uh released recently that sort of discuss these things. In terms of um, in terms of the people that I'm most pessimistic about, I would say unfortunately, is exactly the people that are at the you know forefront of developing technologies. And we go back to this idea of, of course, profit versus you know what's good for society. Um, in terms of governments, it's a tough one because right now, you know, asking to regulate AI in a moment of heightened, you know, great power competition and all of this is seen as a sort of negative thing for many reasons. So I think I'm a bit pessimistic again.

SPEAKER_03 41:15

It's strange because some of these big AI leaders, whether it's Altman or Elon Musk, they seem at times to talk about the threat from it, but yet they still keep pushing ahead and moving ahead. So yeah, it's hard. It does seem to be some truth to what you're saying that people recognize the threat, but the competition, whether it's just business or it's strategic and national, seems to kind of override any real kind of thinking about how to bring in outside voices and make it a more kind of inclusive approach. You know, as law enforcement centers begin flagging nonviolent progressive advocacy uh of tech infrastructure as potential threat vectors, where should democracies draw the line between civil environmental dissent and the prevention of ecoterrorism? Like, where do you think they draw that line?

SPEAKER_02 42:14

Again, again, this is an important question because as I mentioned, there's plenty, hundreds of uh non-violent legal movements. Some of these movements don't uh also have war views that are not too different from those of the violent groups. They just don't use violence to achieve their goals. So there are groups, there's one group in France called Anti-Tech Revolution, which is a legal and non-violent movement. Um, but the goal of this group is still the eradication, complete eradication of technology. Now, I would argue that you know a healthy democracy should be able to uh obviously uh you know should should be able to like coexist with these views uh as long as they're non-violent. Um so I'd say the line is I'd say that I would say that many of the forms of critique of technologies that we see today are something that can be very good and positive for society because it's signaling that there's something in the way that technology and progress is go is marching that is causing harm among many different sectors of society. So we need to listen to these critics and learn from them and address the root causes, as I was saying a minute ago. Then, of course, when we get into the realm of violence and underground activities and uh and the use of terrorism as symbolic, you know, and represent form of violence against representatives of the system or against infrastructure that could cause disruption among um for many people, then I think that's where that's where we draw the line. And I and I think it's again, I I think we this is a crucial moment for this because we have, I guess, an incredible opportunity to address these root causes become before they become even uh even even bigger. And but all of this depends on our approach and how we distinguish again between between you know the anti-tech the anti-tech extremists, the anti-tech terrorists, and people who are demanding more fairness in all of this uh AI and technological revolution. So uh yeah, it's it's definitely one area where we shouldn't, we shouldn't like overreact and we shouldn't securitize. And it's a bit, you know, it's reminiscent of what was happening in the late 90s and early 2000s when several radical environmentalist groups were all of a sudden considered the number one domestic terrorist threat in the US. And none of these groups really ever killed anyone. They set a few things on fire, yes, sure. But there's a difference between setting something on fire, freeing, liberating a few animals, and putting bombs in uh in uh in you know, in public squares or mass shootings and all of that. So um to have a heavy-handed response to this might actually, as I was saying a few minutes ago, just be one of the main you know drivers of radicalization in this regard.

SPEAKER_01 45:27

It's fascinating. Mauro, I this uh we're so grateful for the time you've spent with us. I feel like your work really exemplifies what we're trying to achieve here, Jay and I, on this podcast, which is to really highlight these threats that are really not so visible uh and yet important to understand. Um, so thank you so much for joining us. Before we go, where can listeners find you or learn more about your work?

SPEAKER_02 45:53

You can find me on uh LinkedIn, uh, but also uh on my university uh webpage, University of Bath. Just type my name, Mauro Lubrano, and you will find all of the links to my work. And then my book can be purchased on various uh digital platforms. Uh the publishers' polities can be purchased directly from the publisher website, or again, all of the usual digital platforms to buy books. I also have a few other um shorter like pieces available in several like digital outlets from the GNET to ICCT. Um, yes.

SPEAKER_01 46:31

Amazing. Well, and so for listeners again, uh Mauro's book is Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism. Um, before you go, if for listeners, if you've made it this far, please consider leaving us a review. Uh, hopefully a good one. It makes a huge difference for us in helping people find us. And if you have an idea or question for us or just want to say hi, send us a note at thethreatpod at gwu dot email.edu. Bye. Thanks a lot.