Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do

Opinion

When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do
a person standing in a doorway with a light coming through it

The massive outage that crippled Amazon Web Services this past October 20th sent shockwaves through the digital world. Overnight, the invisible backbone of our online lives buckled: Websites went dark, apps froze, transactions stalled, and billions of dollars in productivity and trust evaporated. For a few hours, the modern economy’s nervous system failed. And in that silence, something was revealed — how utterly dependent we have become on a single corporate infrastructure to keep our civilization’s pulse steady.

When Amazon sneezes, the world catches a fever. That is not a mark of efficiency or innovation. It is evidence of recklessness. For years, business leaders have mocked antitrust reformers like FTC Chair Lina Khan, dismissing warnings about the dangers of monopoly concentration as outdated paranoia. But the AWS outage was not a cyberattack or an act of God — it was simply the predictable outcome of a world that has traded resilience for convenience, diversity for cost-cutting, and independence for “efficiency.” Executives who proudly tout their “risk management frameworks” now find themselves helpless before a single vendor’s internal failure.


And the irony is brutal. Because those very same executives who love to rail against regulation and celebrate “the free market,” have built their empires on a single provider’s proprietary architecture — a fragile monoculture dressed up as digital progress. The lesson is as old as civilization: Centralization breeds vulnerability. When everything is connected through one hub, the entire system becomes hostage to its stability.

And yet, there is a strange silver lining. Outages like AWS’s, painful as they are, have the virtue of being visible. They hurt in real time. The pain is immediate, undeniable, and public. The fallout generates debate and, at least for a while, introspection. We may even take steps toward diversification — using multiple providers, investing in redundancy, designing systems that can withstand partial failure. The lesson, though learned the hard way, can be learned.

But what about the monopolies that never go down? The ones that never blink out for a few hours to expose their power?

Those may be even more dangerous, because they do not shock — they soothe and hum along. They shape the air we breathe, the stories we hear, the categories of thought we consider acceptable, and they do it quietly.

A case in point: The great consolidation of modern media: A handful of conglomerates controlling newspapers, television, digital platforms, film studios, and streaming — has created a quieter, subtler outage: An outage of dissent and and with it the slow but relentless erasure an informed and engaged citizenry-driven democracy.

When every channel is owned by the same few hands, when public debate is filtered through the same editorial logic, and when the same “respectable” voices decide what counts as “reasonable” and what is “extreme,” we drift into a cultural monoculture no less brittle than AWS’s server farms. But this one never goes offline. It keeps running—shaping minds, narrowing horizons, policing language, and quietly defining the limits of permissible thought.

You don’t have to look far for proof. For more than two years, while much of the world took to the streets in outrage, the American media averted its gaze from the genocide in Gaza – the one that has been financed in our name by our own tax dollars. When it finally did turn its attention to the story – when images of children dying of famine became too unbearable to ignore – it did so in the antiseptic language of “conflict” and “security,” filtering suffering through euphemism and imbalance. And all along, Pro-Israel voices dominated the airwaves, while those speaking for the other side were marginalized, stripped of context, lectured and manhandled in interviews, and denied the empathy so readily extended to their adversaries. None of this was by accident.

When democracy is being dismantled, there is no harsh moment of disruption to wake us up from that. No frozen app, no lost transaction. Only, perhaps, one day, the slow realization that our freedoms have eroded, that we are living inside a surveillance architecture of our own making, that the stories we tell ourselves about being informed and free were quietly rewritten while we scrolled. And by then, there may be no “reboot” — no simple fix, no alternative provider to migrate to.

That is the deeper danger of monopoly: Not the moment when it fails, but the long years when it works too well — when it serves power so efficiently that no one remembers what it was like to live outside its reach.

We will recover from AWS’s outage. We always do. But the question that should haunt us is not how to prevent the next system crash. It’s how to prevent the far greater one — the silent crash of democratic agency, cultural plurality, and free thought — that happens not when the lights go out, but when they shine only on what we are allowed to see.

Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.

Read More

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Getty Images

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

Fear is the worst possible response to AI. Actions taken out of fear are rarely a good thing, especially when it comes to emerging technology. Empirically-driven scrutiny, on the other hand, is a savvy and necessary reaction to technologies like AI that introduce great benefits and harms. The difference is allowing emotions to drive policy rather than ongoing and rigorous evaluation.

A few reminders of tech policy gone wrong, due, at least in part, to fear, helps make this point clear. Fear is what has led the US to become a laggard in nuclear energy, while many of our allies and adversaries enjoy cheaper, more reliable energy. Fear is what explains opposition to autonomous vehicles in some communities, while human drivers are responsible for 120 deaths per day, as of 2022. Fear is what sustains delays in making drones more broadly available, even though many other countries are tackling issues like rural access to key medicine via drones.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looking at a smartphone.

With autism rates doubling every decade, scientists are reexamining environmental and behavioral factors. Could the explosion of social media use since the 1990s be influencing neurodevelopment? A closer look at the data, the risks, and what research must uncover next.

Getty Images, Arindam Ghosh

The Increase in Autism and Social Media – Coincidence or Causal?

Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.

In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection
Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.
Getty Images - stock photo

Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection

One of the great gifts of the Enlightenment age was the centrality of reason and empiricism as instruments to unleash the astonishing potential of human capacity. Great Enlightenment thinkers recognized that human beings have the capacity to observe the universe and rely on logical thinking to solve problems.

Moreover, these were not just lofty ideals; Benjamin Franklin and Denis Diderot demonstrated that building our collective constitution of knowledge could greatly enhance human prosperity not only for the aristocratic class but for all participants in the social contract. Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” and Diderot and d’Alembert’s “Encyclopédie” served as the Enlightenment’s machines de guerre, effectively providing broad access to practical knowledge, empowering individuals to build their own unique brand of prosperity.

Keep ReadingShow less
The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies in Washington on May 21, 2025.

The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is displeased with a broadcast network. He makes his displeasure clear in public speeches, interviews and congressional testimony.

The network, afraid of the regulatory agency’s power to license their owned-and-operated stations, responds quickly. They change the content of their broadcasts. Network executives understand the FCC’s criticism is supported by the White House, and the chairman implicitly represents the president.

Keep ReadingShow less