Monopoly of technology companies

The third division is between technology companies and the disconnected. Technology companies are increasingly dominant in the marketplace: the only way to achieve the expectations of their investors is to be a monopoly. However, most technology companies seem profoundly disinterested in thinking deeply about the repercussions of their business models, the power they have or the long term implications for society. Facebook, for example, has been cavalier in how it treats the data from its two billion users, and has dragged its feet on implementing proper moderation of its platform, leading to privacy scandals, political interference and, worse, ethnic and communal violence in the developing world. Governments, oblivious to the threats of social division from these companies, are only now beginning to act.

The world has seen large companies with monopoly power before, but they rarely claimed that their product or service was the solution to all the world's problems. However, technology companies argue, and would like us to even believe, that greater digital connectivity – and, by extension, access to their platforms – will be the solution to all the world's problems, from sanitation to racism and even fighting pollution. Though hopelessly hubristic, many with vested interests in this narrative have become whole sale advocates and this includes most leading global media outlets.

Cultural power

The final division is between those with cultural power and those without. Global culture – insofar as one can talk about it – is really driven by a very small number of countries: the United States, a few European countries, and possibly Japan. Regional cultural powers, such as India, China and Nigeria, do not yet have the global presence that American culture does. The latter is not a function of an intrinsic value but instead derived from the last few centuries of Western dominance marked by the American exceptionalism of the last seventy years. Despite this cultural monopoly, attempts to preserve local culture, whether Canada's quotas for locally produced content or China’s strict approval system for foreign media, are often portrayed as evidence of parochialism.

The threat to cultural diversity is bad in itself, but there is an economic effect as well. Currently, the only global vision of 'the good life' is the Western one: a two-storey house in the suburbs, with two cars, the latest appliances and gadgets, and an expansive diet steeped in wastage and over consumption. Even countries that follow very different economic and political models, such as China, still sadly see the American way of life as the symbol of modern prosperity.

This is dangerous, as the American way of life consumes a massive amount of resources, far more than the Earth's ability to provide. It is rooted in the belief that there are no limits on human consumption, as ingenuity can overcome any constraint. If all people were to pursue this way of life – which will happen without presenting viable alternatives – then the Earth is doomed.

However and more importantly, this wellbeing of the citizens is due in part and is preserved by the global divisions which form part of the status quo. This is what the rich West refers to as the 'rules-based global order', but which in fact is code for preserving past privileges much of which also has its roots in historical exploitation which created wealth and in turn allowed for these privileges to be provided. They are thus in fact also beneficiaries of these deep rooted global divisions the seeds of which were planted centuries ago.

Will we see an honest accounting of global divisions of power? Given that it would require some hard thinking about Western privilege, the answer is 'probably not'. But if the world really is becoming more polarised, we should be honest about its cause: a growing dissatisfaction with the global division of power, and the belief amongst many in the world that it needs to be changed.