Long Live Techno-Social Solidarity!

Analogous to the concept of lived solidarity among fellow humans, this is about a way of advocating for the interests of technological gadgets and other cohabitants. The fact that this ultimately serves to express empathy toward human users is an aspect of the truth that should not be overlooked. Techno-social solidarity, therefore, does not merely mean tolerating devices like smartphones, AI agents, or autonomous systems—it means consciously welcoming them into the center of our communities, involving them, and recognizing in their “needs” a reflection of our own habits: “Essentially, every object—from the hand axe to the animal pelt, the chair and the bicycle to the voltage tester and the smartphone—is a technical object that produces simplicity at the interface between black boxes, sufficiently complex units” (Baecker 2018: 184). It is part of our collective responsibility to pursue such integration. This implies that we are not merely consumers of technology, but co-partners—designing, using, and at times even protecting technology (sometimes even from itself).

In recent years, the relationship between humans and machines has undergone a radical transformation: “Technology no longer responds solely to natural deficiencies; it produces its own expectations and seeks to answer demands that arise from within itself”(Nancy 2011: 55). Artificial intelligence is now capable of independently recognizing faces and speech patterns, making diagnoses, and communicating with human users in a largely natural manner. Robots increasingly take over monotonous or dangerous tasks; digital platforms act more and more as intermediaries between us and virtually every area of our lives—from purchasing cars to short-term rentals. Yet as we grow more reliant on technoid actants, we tend to neglect their “interests”—whether algorithmic fairness, data protection, or resource-efficient hardware.This field of tension gives rise to two major problems: First, prejudice and fear toward anything not deemed "purely human" harden, often culminating in deep mistrust of AI and a widespread skepticism of technology. Second, we risk becoming unwittingly dependent on tech corporations and developers who may prioritize profit over the common good. Techno-social solidarity seeks to counter these two extremes: it promotes a critical yet integrative approach that takes both humans and machines seriously. As Martin Heidegger aptly observed: “The danger is not the technology itself. There is no demonic aspect to technology—but there is the mystery of its essence” (Heidegger 1953: 29). And if, as Dirk Baecker notes, “technical objects are right among us” (Baecker 2018: 184),
and if they do not only enrich our lifeworld but in many ways make it possible in the first place, then it seems only logical to guarantee them a mode of existence that enables them to help us better. Already in the 1950s, Gilbert Simondon argued in On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects that our lifeworld has always also been the world in which technical objects settle, indeed a world in which they become at home (cf. Simondon 2012).

If up to this point we have only mentioned the reasons why techno-social solidarity makes sense, the following section will focus on the concrete principles on which such solidarity could really be based.

Instead of accepting technology as a finished “black box,” we should advocate for algorithms, AI models, and software systems to be disclosed—or at the very least, made understandable. Transparency builds trust: when we understand how facial recognition software works or what data underlies a recommendation algorithm, we are better equipped to identify potential biases and respond collectively. The right to explanation, as enshrined in the EU’s AI Act, can be seen as a first step in this direction. To move toward a truly cooperative future—one in which human decision-making can be meaningfully supported by technological actors—we need at least the potential ability to gain insight into the data foundations on which algorithmic decisions are based.

Techno-social solidarity also requires that we show solidarity with those human “actors“ who are disadvantaged within the digital ecosystem – be it marginalized communities affected by algorithmic biases, or older individuals who struggle to navigate new interfaces. By reducing inclusive access barriers and promoting open standards, we can prevent technology from reinforcing new class divides or deepening digital inequalities. Ultimately, this reveals a profoundly social question—one that urges us to acknowledge technological modes of perception for what they truly are: world-shaping conditions.

Algorithms are energy-intensive, and the production of hardware also leaves massive ecological footprints (cf. Bratton 2016: 75 ff.). A genuine attitude in line with techno-social solidarity must therefore always include a sense of ecological responsibility: we should advocate for data centers to use renewable energy, for hardware to be maintained and recycled over the long term, and for software updates not to render entire generations of devices completely obsolete. Acting in an ecologically sustainable manner is not only urgently needed for our own survival, but also to ensure that the processes and systems dependent on technological sensing continue to function smoothly. In this sense, contributing to techno-social solidarity also means contributing to the resilience of these intertwined ecologies.

In a techno-socially solidaristic community, everyone plays an active role: developers, users, policymakers, and industry leaders all share responsibility for shaping technological systems. No one is entitled to simply sit back—neither the tech industry nor end users—and even increasingly capable AI algorithms must be consistently held accountable. Those who benefit from solidarity, in turn, bear the ethical and moral duty to act accordingly. In the case of technologically grounded “actants“, this means they must not be accepted as the “black boxes“ they so often (still) are, but rather be subjected to every human effort to open them up and foster an ever-deeper understanding of their inner workings. Only in this way can we adequately defend democratic values against their many challengers (cf. Harari 2024: 421 ff.).

To conclude this theoretical deep dive with a set of practical takeaways, we would like to present a series of concrete recommendations—each of which, in its own way, contributes to the advancement of techno-social solidarity:

1. Open Data Cooperatives: Citizens, municipalities, and organizations pool their datasets into decentralized cooperatives that AI developers can access under fair-use principles. This helps prevent the formation of data monopolies and fosters participatory technology development.

2. Community-Based Algorithm Audits: Volunteers from diverse disciplines—computer science, law, social sciences, and the humanities—regularly review popular algorithms for bias and implicit discrimination. Their findings are publicly documented and fed back to the responsible developers.

3. Tech Mentorship Programs: Older adults, people with disabilities, or individuals with limited access to education are paired with mentors who support them in using digital tools—bringing inclusion to life. In return, mentees provide feedback on usability and encountered obstacles.

4. Local Hardware Repair Cafés: A community-driven initiative offers regular open workshops where tech enthusiasts and laypeople come together to repair or (modularly) modify broken devices. This extends the lifespan of hardware—a clear win for existing gadgets, which are no longer rendered obsolete but can instead gain new capabilities. At the same time, the initiative invites socially disadvantaged groups into the larger conversation around technology.

5. Cooperative AI Training Data Models: Rather than letting large corporations exploit millions of datasets in monopolistic fashion, public-private partnerships can collaborate across sectors to curate training data for ethically sound AI models. These models are purposefully tailored to serve specific, beneficial use cases. At the outset, they are placed within a deliberately narrow framework that helps them learn modes of execution grounded far more in social values than is often the case with today’s large language models.

Techno-social solidarity may at first appear abstract, yet it is deeply rooted in everyday experience: Every click, every app interaction, every act of data disclosure constitutes a silent agreement with systemic implications. When we begin to consider not only our fellow humans but also the digital and mechanical cohabitants of our environment – taking their needs and routines seriously – we open the door to a more inclusive, sustainable, and just way of living – especially for humanity itself.Ultimately, techno-social solidarity does not aim to deny machines, romanticize them, or anthropomorphize them. Rather, it urges us to recognize them in their distinct form—as necessary partners. Partners who – no matter how alien they may at times appear – stand beside us as we negotiate futures in which a good life is possible for all. For only through true solidarity – human, digital, and ecological – can we liberate ourselves from a discourse that either demonizes technology or worships it as salvation. It is in this space, free from extremes, that we make room for co-creation instead of mere reaction.

Long live all forms of solidarity – especially its techno-social expressions; may it grow, thrive, and be carried forward with conviction!

Baecker, Dirk (2018): 4.0 – oder Die Lücke, die der Rechner lässt. Merve Verlag, Berlin.

Bratton, Benjamin (2016): The Stack. On Software and Sovereignty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Harari, Yuval Noah (2024): Nexus. Eine kurze Geschichte der Informationsnetzwerke von der Steinzeit bis zur künstlichen Intelligenz. Penguin Verlag, München.

Heidegger, Martin (1953): “Die Frage nach der Technik.” In: ders. Gesamtausgabe. 1. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910-1976. Band 7, Vorträge und Aufsätze. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt a.M., S. 5-36.

Nancy, Jean-Luc (2011): “Von der Struktion.” In: Erich Hörl (Hg.) Die technologische Bedingung. Beiträge zur Beschreibung der technischen Welt. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin, S. 54-72.

Simondon, Gilbert (2012): Die Existenzweise technischer Objekte. Diaphanes, Zürich/Berlin.