This story appears in the June 2026 print edition. While some stories from this issue are not yet available to read online, you can explore more from the magazine . Get our editors' guide to what matters in the world, delivered to your inbox every weekday. The courtship between Silicon Valley and MAGA was consummated on June 6, 2024, in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood, on a street known as "Billionaires' Row," at the 22,000-square-foot, $45 million French-limestone mansion of a venture capitalist named David Sacks. Along with Chamath Palihapitiya, a fellow venture capitalist and a colleague on the podcast, Sacks hosted a fundraiser for Donald Trump. He knew that other technology titans were coming around to the ex-president but remained in the closet. "And I think that this event is going to break the ice on that," Sacks said on the podcast the week before the fundraiser. "And maybe it'll create a preference cascade, where all of a sudden it becomes acceptable to acknowledge the truth." Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read. A few years earlier, Sacks had described the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol as an "insurrection" and pronounced Trump "disqualified" from ever again holding national office. "What Trump did was absolutely outrageous, and I think it brought him to an ignominious end in American politics," he said on the podcast a few days after the event. "He will pay for it in the history books, if not in a court of law." Palihapitiya was more colloquial, calling Trump "a complete piece-of-shit fucking scumbag." These might seem like tricky positions to climb down from--but the path that leads from scathing denunciation through gradual accommodation to sycophantic embrace of Trump is a well-worn pilgrimage trail. The journey is less wearisome for self-mortifiers who never considered democracy (a word seldom spoken on the podcast) all that important in the first place.

Booth is a reporter at TIME. Hemant Taneja, CEO, General Catalyst speaks on stage during The Summit on U.S. Resilience hosted by General Catalyst Institute at The Salamander on Nov. 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. Hemant Taneja, CEO, General Catalyst speaks on stage during The Summit on U.S. Resilience hosted by General Catalyst Institute at The Salamander on Nov. 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. Booth is a reporter at TIME. Hemant Taneja, who leads one of the world's largest venture firms, believes doing good isn't just the right thing to do.

There's Never Been a Worse Time to Be Authentic at Work Workers have been told to bring themselves to work, only to be disappointed time and time again, argues author Jodi-Ann Burey in her new book. Jodi-Ann Burey was only two weeks into her new role as an inclusion marketing manager for an outdoor retail company when she was accused of having a "race agenda." Burey, who is Black, was no stranger to workplace hypocrisy; as she sees it, the office is a petri dish where the knotty dynamics of society are concentrated. At the time of the accusation in February 2020, however, all she could do was laugh. "I was like, you knew who I was before you poached me. This is exactly what you wanted me to do," she says over Zoom.

Since Donald Trump launched his chaotic trade war earlier this year, it has become a truism to say he has plunged the world economy into crisis. At last month's spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, where policymakers and finance ministers from all over congregated, the attenders were "shellshocked", the economist Eswar Prasad, a former senior IMF official who now teaches at Cornell, told me. "The sense is that the world has changed fundamentally in ways that cannot easily be put back together. Every country has to figure out its own place in this new world order and how to protect its own interests." Trump's assault on the old global order is real. But in taking its measure, it's necessary to look beyond the daily headlines and acknowledge that being in a state of crisis is nothing new to capitalism. It's also important to note that, as Karl Marx wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please."

Amazon has disabled two key privacy features in its Alexa smart speakers, in a push to introduce artificial intelligence-powered "agentic capabilities" and turn a profit from the popular devices. Starting from March 28, Alexa devices now send all audio recordings to the cloud for processing, and choosing not to save these recordings will disable personalisation features. A voice assistant works by constantly listening for a "wake word", such as "Alexa". Once woken, it records the command that is spoken and matches it to an action, such as playing a music track. Matching a spoken command to an action requires what computer scientists call natural language understanding, which can take a lot of computer power. Matching commands to actions can be done locally (on the device itself), or sound recordings can be uploaded to the cloud for processing.

This paper develops a critical theory of artificial intelligence, within a historical constellation where computational systems increasingly generate cultural content that destabilises traditional distinctions between human and machine production. Through this analysis, I introduce the concept of the algorithmic condition, a cultural moment when machine-generated work not only becomes indistinguishable from human creation but actively reshapes our understanding of ideas of authenticity. This transformation, I argue, moves beyond false consciousness towards what I call post-consciousness, where the boundaries between individual and synthetic consciousness become porous. Drawing on critical theory and extending recent work on computational ideology, I develop three key theoretical contributions, first, the concept of the Inversion to describe a new computational turn in algorithmic society; second, automimetric production as a framework for understanding emerging practices of automated value creation; and third, constellational analysis as a methodological approach for mapping the complex interplay of technical systems, cultural forms and political economic structures. Through these contributions, I argue that we need new critical methods capable of addressing both the technical specificity of AI systems and their role in restructuring forms of life under computational capitalism. The paper concludes by suggesting that critical reflexivity is needed to engage with the algorithmic condition without being subsumed by it and that it represents a growing challenge for contemporary critical theory.

When Elinor O'Donovan found out she had been randomly selected to participate in a basic income pilot scheme, she couldn't believe her luck. In return for a guaranteed salary of just over 1,400 ( 1,200) a month from the Irish government, all the 27-year-old artist had to do was fill out a bi-annual questionnaire about her wellbeing and how she spends her time. "It was like winning the lottery. I was in such disbelief," she says. The income, which she will receive until September 2025, has enabled her to give up temping and focus instead on her art.

The growing trend of artificial intelligence (AI) as a solution to social and technical problems reinforces AI Realism -- the belief that AI is an inevitable and natural order. In response, this paper argues that participatory design (PD), with its focus on democratic values and processes, can play a role in questioning and resisting AI Realism. I examine three concerning aspects of AI Realism: the facade of democratization that lacks true empowerment, demands for human adaptability in contrast to AI systems' inflexibility, and the obfuscation of essential human labor enabling the AI system. I propose resisting AI Realism by reconfiguring PD to continue engaging with value-centered visions, increasing its exploration of non-AI alternatives, and making the essential human labor underpinning AI systems visible. I position PD as a means to generate friction against AI Realism and open space for alternative futures centered on human needs and values.

This paper critically analyses the "attention economy" within the framework of cognitive science and techno-political economics, as applied to both human and machine interactions. We explore how current business models, particularly in digital platform capitalism, harness user engagement by strategically shaping attentional patterns. These platforms utilize advanced AI and massive data analytics to enhance user engagement, creating a cycle of attention capture and data extraction. We review contemporary (neuro)cognitive theories of attention and platform engagement design techniques and criticize classical cognitivist and behaviourist theories for their inadequacies in addressing the potential harms of such engagement on user autonomy and wellbeing. 4E approaches to cognitive science, instead, emphasizing the embodied, extended, enactive, and ecological aspects of cognition, offer us an intrinsic normative standpoint and a more integrated understanding of how attentional patterns are actively constituted by adaptive digital environments. By examining the precarious nature of habit formation in digital contexts, we reveal the techno-economic underpinnings that threaten personal autonomy by disaggregating habits away from the individual, into an AI managed collection of behavioural patterns. Our current predicament suggests the necessity of a paradigm shift towards an ecology of attention. This shift aims to foster environments that respect and preserve human cognitive and social capacities, countering the exploitative tendencies of cognitive capitalism.

Shortly after I became pregnant with my second child, in the fall of 2022, I decided to try a modest experiment. I wanted to see whether I could hide my pregnancy from my phone. After spending my twenties eagerly surveilling and sharing the details of my life online, I had already begun trying to erect some walls of technological privacy: I'd deleted most apps on my phone and turned off camera, location, and microphone access for nearly all of the ones that I did have; I had disabled Siri--I just found it annoying--and I didn't have any smart devices. For the experiment, I would abide by some additional restrictions. I wouldn't Google anything about pregnancy nor shop for baby stuff either online or using a credit card, and neither would my husband, because our I.P. addresses--and thus the vast, matrixed fatbergs of personal data assembled by unseen corporations to pinpoint our consumer and political identities--were linked.