AI translated#social media#Society#Virtual World Innovations
Silicon Tanks: Byung-Chul Han, Critic of the Cult of Productivity
Byung-Chul Han on productivity, data power, and the need to stop.
Byung-Chul Han is a German philosopher of Korean origin. He was born in Seoul and has taught philosophy, media theory, and cultural studies in Basel, Karlsruhe, and Berlin. He rose to prominence with The Burnout Society, first published in German in 2010. The book explores how people who believe they are free can drive themselves to exhaustion.
Han writes slim books and releases them in quick succession. This article focuses on two: The Burnout Society and Infocracy. They help examine how voluntary activity becomes a form of control and why it is important to be able to stop.
If You Can, You Must
In The Burnout Society, Han builds on the concept of the French philosopher Michel Foucault. In Discipline and Punish (1975), the disciplinary society governs people through prohibitions, routines, and surveillance. Its spaces are the prison, the barracks, and the factory.
According to Han, this model no longer describes the contemporary order, which he calls the achievement society. It spurs action through projects, initiative, and motivation. Its call is: you can work more efficiently and get more done. People raise their own expectations, treating greater effort as the path to success.
In 2026, a Harvard Business Review study found a similar dynamic at a U.S. technology company. As AI was integrated into routine processes, employees worked longer, increased their pace, and took on additional tasks, often without being asked by management.
Han explains the shift as a drive to increase output. Discipline remains, but the promise of new opportunities extracts more than prohibition ever did.
“The exploiter is at once the exploited. Predator and prey can no longer be distinguished,” the philosopher writes.
Han links this boundless escalation of activity to an excess of positivity: a stance of constant “can,” ever-new chances, and stimuli to act. Negativity includes prohibition, resistance, and the right to interrupt the usual course of things. It can both limit people and give them the capacity to refuse an imposed action.
In a society that does not recognize limits, failure turns into self-blame: you did not try hard enough or work on yourself sufficiently. For Han, this personal feeling masks an external compulsion to achieve.
Attention Without Pause
The demand to do more has an everyday form: constant task-switching. Han compares such a person to a wild animal—eating, watching over its young, fending off rivals, and checking whether something is about to devour it.
“Multitasking is indeed widespread among wild animals. It is a method of attention control that is necessary for survival in the wild,” the philosopher notes.
Attention becomes broad but flat. It helps detect threats but leaves little room for concentration. Han links cultural development to a different ability: lingering on a subject, enduring boredom, giving thought time.
From the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Han borrows the idea of educating the gaze: learning to look means training oneself in patience. Without the ability to delay reaction, hyperactivity turns into passivity as people follow every stimulus.
Only Users Are Transparent
In Infocracy, voluntary activity also becomes about people, algorithms, and AI to predict and manage behavior an information regime
This oversight relies on communication: the more people disclose about themselves, the more detailed their behavioral profiles become. Users may feel free while remaining unaware of the observation.
“Domination reaches completion at the moment when freedom and surveillance become one,” Han writes.
He illustrates this asymmetry with Apple’s glass cube store in New York. Transparent architecture promises openness, yet the structure of power remains concealed. The user is visible, while the mechanism processing their data operates as a black box.
For Han, surveillance fuses with everyday life, hiding behind the convenience of search engines, voice assistants, and smart homes. Control is harder to notice when it arrives with a desirable service.
Crisis of Dialogue
Unceasing communication does not by itself produce mutual understanding. Following the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, Han understands discourse as an exchange of arguments open to criticism. Participants admit their own fallibility and are ready to revise their views.
Trouble begins when conviction merges with identity. Objections are then perceived as attacks on the person or their group. Defending belonging becomes more important than testing arguments.
Han criticizes American writer Eli Pariser’s “filter bubble” theory, which links users’ informational isolation to algorithmic personalization online. In Han’s view, people also lock themselves into their beliefs outside the internet.
His “digital tribes” can encounter facts that contradict their beliefs yet reject them to preserve a shared worldview. Simply retuning recommendation feeds is therefore not enough to restore dialogue.
Imagine a crypto community where doubt about a project is treated as betrayal. Participants identify so strongly with the project that they take criticism of it as a personal attack. Instead of discussing a technology’s strengths and weaknesses, they defend group belonging. A similar attitude toward bitcoin in 2023 was described by Nic Carter, criticizing part of its community:
“There are ‘those who use bitcoin,’ also known as bitcoiners (the majority). And there are people who have turned bitcoin into a secular cult. Call the latter laser eyes, maxis or something else, it doesn’t really matter. They know who they are, and we know who they are. There is no ambiguity here — these are people who have turned bitcoin from a tool into a belief system and a way of life.”
Dataists
The crisis of dialogue raises a question: how to make collective decisions when people stop hearing one another? One proposed answer is to replace discussion with data processing. Han calls proponents of this approach dataists.
As he presents it, they consider society too complex for human reason. Big data and AI should find solutions that participants in disputes cannot.
Han cites MIT researcher Alex Pentland. In his book Social Physics, Pentland discusses the “divine eye”: a comprehensive view of society that could, in principle, make it understandable and solvable.
Han argues against substituting computation for argumentation:
“Artificial intelligence does not provide justification; it performs calculations. Instead of arguments — algorithms,” he writes in Infocracy.
Han calls dataism’s claim to complete knowledge “totalitarianism without ideology.” In the perspective he describes, data-driven system management displaces political choice. Ideology promised to explain the past and predict the future; dataism explains nothing — it computes.
A Day for Nothing
The Burnout Society urges a return to control over one’s own attention. Han distinguishes two kinds of potential: positive (the ability to do) and negative (the ability not to do). The latter must be distinguished from powerlessness: an exhausted person is no longer capable of action, while one who can stop preserves choice.
Following Austrian writer Peter Handke, Han also distinguishes two kinds of fatigue. Separating fatigue isolates a person and undermines the ability to communicate. Fundamental fatigue loosens fixation on the self and opens attention to the world.
The image of this state is the Sabbath, a day of ceasing from labor. Han’s “day for nothing” is free from the obligation to justify every activity by its outcome. The value of rest is no longer reduced to preparing for the next work sprint.
Information Moves Faster Than Truth
Han sees crisis where the line between truth and falsehood stops mattering. Messages are prized for the reactions they elicit or because they confirm preexisting views. Verification takes time, while the news stream constantly shifts attention to the new.
For Han, truth is broader than the correctness of individual statements. He ties it to a coherent narrative that gives people common ground for understanding the world. Accumulating data does not create such grounding by itself.
But narrative coherence does not guarantee truth. As Han shows with conspiracy theories, fiction can provide a sense of meaning and belonging while remaining impervious to fact-checking.
Following Foucault, the philosopher considers parrhesia—the courage to speak truth while accepting the risks. Such speech implies care for society and limits arbitrary power.
However, at the end of Infocracy, Han shows the limits of such speech. Where power is built on lies, truth can challenge it. But where the very distinction between truth and falsehood has lost significance, even a courageous statement is drowned out by information noise.
Found a mistake in the text? Select it and press CTRL+ENTER
Algorithms aren’t reading your mind. The reality is worse
How AI Agents Learned to Poison Each Other
The Human as a Temporary Measure
Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form: The Machine Uprising and a New Education System
Doomsday bunkers: why the tech elite is building an autonomous world
How Humans Became the ‘Body’ for Machines
US Congressman Opposes Flock Surveillance Cameras
Researchers report barriers to accessing social media data in the EU
