Executive summary: Corporate rhetoric about innovation and leadership often masks the unpalatable reality of exploitation and extraction. Microsoft’s new AI manifesto, with its careful political positioning and woefully selective historical narrative, exemplifies this troubling pattern – trading safety for market advantage that has historical precedents with catastrophic outcomes.
When the Hindenburg burst into flames in 1937, it marked another era built on hubris – a belief that technological advancement could outrun safety concerns. Microsoft’s recent manifesto on AI leadership eerily echoes this same dangerous confidence, presenting a sanitized version of both American technological history and their own corporate record.
Brad Smith’s Failure at History
The company’s vision statement posted under Brad Smith’s name reads like a saccharin a-historical fiction, painting a rosy picture of American technological development that far too conveniently forgets death and destruction of weakly regulated barons. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire’s 146 victims, the horrific conditions exposed in “The Jungle,” and the long struggle for basic worker protections weren’t exceptions. And selective amnesia by those who profit from ignoring the past isn’t accidental – it’s a strategic attempt to hide the human costs of rapid technological deployment that lacked the most basic safeguards.
Just as the disastrously mis-managed private American railroads of the 19th century built empires on fraud (government handouts while preaching free-market rhetoric) that left taxpayers holding the fallout with no trains in sight, Microsoft now positions itself as a champion of private sector innovation while seeking public funding and protection. Their carefully crafted narrative about “American AI leadership” deliberately obscures how the technology sector actually achieved its “success” – through massive public investment, particularly in military applications for “intelligence” like the billion-dollar-per-year IGLOO WHITE program during the Vietnam War.
Real History, Real Microsoft Patterns
The corporate-driven PR of historical revisionism becomes even more troubling when we examine Microsoft’s awful and immoral business track record. The company that now promises to be a responsible steward of AI technology has consistently prioritized corporate profits over human welfare. Bill Gates’ lack of any concern at all for “virus” risks in his takeover of the personal computer world, delivering billions of disasters and causing world-wide outages, is somehow supposed to be forgotten because he took the money and announced he cares about malaria now? While ignoring basic consumer safety, Microsoft also pioneered a “permatemp” system in the 1990s for a two-tier workforce where thousands of “temporary” workers had to do the work of full-time employees yet without benefits or job security. Even after paying a piddling $97 million to settle lawsuits, they arrogantly shifted to more sophisticated forms of worker exploitation through contracting firms.
As technology evolved, so did Microsoft’s methods of avoiding responsibility. Content moderators exposed to traumatic material, game testers working in precarious conditions, and data center workers denied basic benefits – all while the company’s profits soared unethically. Now, in the AI era, they’ve taken an even more ominous turn by literally dismantling ethical AI oversight teams (because they raised objections) precisely when such oversight is most crucial.
New Avenues for Exploitation
The parallels to past technological disasters are stark. Just as the Grover Shoe Factory’s boiler explosion revealed the costs of prioritizing production over safety, Microsoft’s aggressive push into AI while eliminating ethical oversight should raise alarming questions. This is like removing the brakes on a car when you install a far more powerful engine. Their new AI manifesto, filled with flattery for coming White House occupants using veiled requests for deregulation, reads less like a vision for responsible innovation and more like a corporate attempt to avoid accountability… for when they inevitably burn up their balloon.
Consider the track record:
- Pioneered abusive labor practices in tech
- Consistently fought against worker organizing efforts
- Used contractor firms to obscure poor working conditions
- Fired ethical AI researchers as they accelerate AI
Smith’s manifesto, with carefully crafted appeals to American technological leadership and warnings about Chinese competition, follows this as a familiar pattern. It’s the same strategy railroad companies used to secure land grants, that oil companies used to bypass laws, that steel companies used to avoid safety regulations, and that modern tech giants use to maintain their monopolies.
Tea Pot Dome May Come Again
For anyone considering entrusting their future to Microsoft’s AI vision, the message from history is clear: this is a company that has repeatedly chosen corporate convenience over human welfare. Their elimination of ethical oversight while rapidly deploying AI technology isn’t just a little concerning – it’s intentionally dangerous. Like boarding a hydrogen-filled zeppelin, the risks aren’t immediately visible but are nonetheless catastrophic.
The manifesto’s emphasis on “private sector leadership” and deregulation, combined with their historic exploitative practice of using contractor firms to avoid responsibility, suggests their AI future will repeat the worst patterns of industrial history. Their calls for “pragmatic” export controls and warnings about Chinese competition are less about national security and more about seeking unjust tariffs (e.g. Facebook’s campaign to ban competitor TikTok) and securing corporate benefits while avoiding oversight.
As we stand at the threshold of the AI era, Microsoft’s manifesto should be read not as a vision statement but as them cooking and eating the AI canary in broad daylight. Their selective reading of history, combined with their own troubling track record, suggests we’re witnessing the trumpeted call for a new chapter in corporate exploitation – one where AI technology serves as both the vehicle and the excuse for avoiding responsibility.
Microsoft is sacrificing something (ethical oversight, worker protections) for perceived strategic advantage, just as historical robber barons sacrificed safety and worker welfare for profit.
The question isn’t whether Microsoft can lead in AI development by pouring billions into their race to monopolize it and spit out even their own workers as a lesser caste – it’s whether we can afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing companies to prioritize speed and profit over human welfare and safety. History’s judgment of such choices has always been harsh, and in the AI era, the stakes are even higher.
Era | Historical Pattern | Microsoft’s Echo | Historical Consequence |
---|---|---|---|
Railroad Era | Railroad barons securing land grants while preaching free market values | Seeking public AI funding while claiming private sector leadership | Taxpayers left with failed infrastructure and mounting costs |
Industrial Safety | Triangle Shirtwaist Factory ignoring basic safety measures | Dismantling AI ethics teams during rapid AI deployment | Catastrophic human cost from prioritizing speed over safety |
Labor Rights | Factory owners using contractor systems to avoid responsibility | Permatemp system and modern contractor exploitation | Workers denied benefits while doing essential work |
Monopoly Power | Standard Oil’s predatory practices and regulatory capture | Aggressive AI market behavior and lobbying for deregulation | Concentration of power through regulatory evasion |
Security Theater | Tea Pot Dome scandal disguised as national security | Using China competition narrative to justify monopolistic practices | Public interest sacrificed for private gain |
I see what you’ve done here. It’s good but let’s dig deeper into the Microsoft shots fired at China. Does someone expect to play a tune to make the DC xenophobes dance? When Microsoft officially warns about trusting “Chinese tech” they’re really criticizing the same global supply chain they rely on. Hey Brad, the Surface devices are assembled in China, using Asian-made components. Creating artificial distinctions from “Chinese” tech in 2025 ignores how deeply integrated global tech manufacturing has become. Lenovo’s ThinkPads, for example, evolved from IBM’s American engineering and now are often more trusted than Dell in enterprise computing. This “hey Orange man over here look at me” nativist rhetoric serves to manufacture an adversarial relationship in tech, when the reality is most tech companies depend on Chinese manufacturing expertise and facilities to deliver their products. It reminds me of the Chinese Exclusion Act that criminalized being American Chinese while pressing them into dangerous jobs they had to accept basically with no labor rights (e.g. “America First” violent mobs of late 1800s demanded workers from China only be called Chinese Americans and then burned down their homes if they were too developed).