By Melvin Moses Kiyimba
For years, the tech industry has been painted as a force for good, an engine of innovation that would make the world more efficient, more connected, and more equitable.
But beneath the headlines of billion dollar valuations and market domination, the reality is much darker.
Take Uber, for example. Since August 2023, the media has celebrated its first profitable quarter after losing approximately 32 billion dollars over its operational lifespan.
CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has been credited as the “adult in the room,” the man who finally made Uber profitable.
But what many do not remember is that even he once dismissed Uber as a bad investment. While at Expedia, he and CFO Mark Okerstrom looked at Uber’s financials and walked away, seeing no clear path to profitability.
And they were not wrong to be skeptical. Uber spent years burning cash, acquiring companies like Postmates for 2.7 billion dollars and Transplace for 2.25 billion dollars, battling endless lawsuits, and seeing ride requests plummet 75 percent during COVID 19.
Despite all this, Uber kept growing, propped up by aggressive subsidies and artificially low pricing.
The real question is not whether Uber turned a profit, it is how it got there.
Khosrowshahi’s Uber is profitable, but at what cost? Critics argue that much of its success has come from pushing drivers below minimum wage while squeezing out competitors.
Uber has long been accused of unethical financial practices. A 2022 New York Times investigation revealed that the company may have been charging commissions before accounting for taxes, potentially costing drivers hundreds of millions.
But Uber is not an outlier. The entire tech industry has a history of prioritising disruption over sustainability, with catastrophic consequences.
Facebook, for instance, has actively fueled real world violence. In Myanmar, the platform became a tool for spreading anti Rohingya propaganda, leading to mass killings and displacement.
Despite warnings, Facebook assigned only one Burmese speaking content moderator for over 1.5 million daily active users, demonstrating yet again that corporate oversight only exists when it is profitable.
Then there is the issue of AI bias. In 2014, Amazon developed a hiring algorithm that unknowingly discriminated against women applying for technical roles.
It was not deliberate, but it was a glaring example of how technology mirrors the biases of its creators. Yet, we continue to act as if technology is neutral, separate from the messy realities of human prejudice and power.
And this brings us to Elon Musk.
Musk, a man worshipped by tech evangelists, has been using X (formerly Twitter) to manipulate the political landscape.
Reports have surfaced that Musk is subtly shaping X’s algorithms and moderation policies to favor Donald Trump in the upcoming United States election.
By allowing right wing extremism to flourish while suppressing opposing voices, Musk is turning his platform into a political weapon. X is no longer just a social media platform, it is an active player in shaping democracy.
But Musk’s ambitions go beyond politics, he has long dreamed of turning X into a WeChat style “everything app.”
This model has only succeeded in China because of heavy government intervention, where Tencent and ByteDance operate with state backing.
In the hands of an unchecked capitalist like Musk, a super app would not serve the public, it would consolidate even more power over users’ data, finances, and online identities.
This is not just speculation, we have already seen how unchecked corporate power distorts markets and lives.
Look at how the United States and China are using tariffs as economic weapons in the ongoing trade war.
Originally designed to protect domestic industries, tariffs have now become a tool for controlling global supply chains and punishing geopolitical adversaries.
Musk, Apple, and other tech giants are caught in the middle, adjusting production and prices to navigate political tensions.
Meanwhile, the real victims are consumers, workers, and developing economies forced to play by rules they had no say in making.
The idea that technology is an equalising force is a lie.
Power in tech does not redistribute wealth or opportunity, it consolidates it. The companies claiming to “make the world better” are the same ones manipulating elections, cutting jobs, and exploiting workers.
Take Amazon Web Services, the silent behemoth of the internet. AWS powers everything from Netflix and Spotify to the FBI and NASA, controlling a staggering share of global cloud infrastructure.
Amazon is not just a retailer, it is a data empire, the “landlord of the internet.” The more businesses and governments rely on AWS, the more control Amazon gains, unchecked and largely invisible.
And then there is the war in Congo, which is driven by demand for coltan, a mineral essential for making smartphones and electric vehicles.
Companies like Apple, Samsung, and Tesla benefit from Congo’s instability because conflict keeps mineral prices low and supply chains unregulated.
If peace broke out, wages would rise, regulations would tighten, and tech giants would have to pay fair prices. So the war continues.
The people running these companies know the game is rigged, which is why they are investing in space travel, not for the thrill of exploration, but because they see Earth as a lost cause.
While billionaires dream of Martian colonies, the rest of us are left to deal with the consequences of their unchecked greed.
The truth is, power does not corrupt, it enables people to do what they always wanted to do.
And if history is any indication, that rarely benefits the people at the bottom.
The Author is Head of Streaming ,Next Media