Will public backlash to new technologies lapse into further incidents of violence?

Two aspects of contemporary tech suggest the answer is yes. One is the tech industry’s environmental impact—exemplified most clearly in debates over data centers—and its contribution to the effects from climate change. The other is tech’s new role as a symbol of the establishment: no longer perceived as liberating or anti-authority, new technologies like Flock cameras are pulling technology into a broader anti-establishment mood across the United States. Neither of these aspects has a clear or easy path to resolution.

While anti-tech sentiments are not wholly new to American extremism, they are especially salient today. The result is a complex mix of legitimate discontent, radical politics, and occasional acts of violence. But if the grievances driving anti-tech sentiment are not addressed, they may create a foundation for escalating violence.

Technology as a symbol for environmental degradation and the establishment

Data centers are critical for AI development and implementation, but they have attracted massive backlash for a variety of reasons. Polls show that the issue transcends partisan politics and that concerns about their effect on resources are paramount. In a deeply divided political environment, agreement is noteworthy. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has recently initiated a process that will require an audit before any data center project moves forward, an unusual similarity to New York’s first-in-the-nation statewide moratorium on data centers. For two states with politicians and constituents that are hardly perceived to agree on much, the popularity of halting data centers is distinct.

Data centers are not a new target for extremists: in 2021, a man was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison after attempting to obtain an explosive device that would be used to destroy an Amazon data center, with the goal of disrupting the majority of the the internet and Amazon servers. Anger over data centers has motivated violence on at least one occasion: in April, someone shot at an Indianapolis city councilman’s house in retaliation for the councilman’s support of a data center project, leaving a note reading “no data centers.”

The backlash against Flock cameras also has adherents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. These cameras use AI to capture license plate data and other information as vehicles pass by. Their use by law enforcement has invited concerns about mass surveillance; their misuse for purposes such as stalking former intimate partners feeds into existing distrust of authority. Some politicians share these concerns. Across the country, there are communities moving to cancel contracts with Flock, deactivate existing cameras, or reject agreement proposals. But those proposals may not satisfy citizen saboteurs who target these cameras for vandalism and destruction.

Extremists have co-opted this anger for their own gains. In July, a California-based chapter of the white supremacist United Youth Club released a video with anti-Flock messaging; propaganda shared by other chapters of the United Youth Club have also included anti-data center narratives. The Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium has reported several incidents of extremist channels sharing anti-Flock images and videos, such as one that imitates the Gadsden flag or another that shows Pepe the Frog sabotaging a Flock camera.

It is unlikely (though not impossible) that extremist groups are organizing solely around anti-technology ideas. More likely, established extremists groups are utilizing public grievances as an entry point to radicalization and recruitment. Propaganda, particularly that which utilizes memes, can be shared widely and has the potential to encourage stochastic violence. If leaders in government and tech do not respond to the grievances, a small number of individuals may see violence as the only way to attract attention.

A brief history of anti-tech undercurrents in environmental extremism

Extremists’ focus on technology is not unique to this moment. Rather, anti-technology sentiments have often played a flexible role in both far-left and far-right narratives about the environment.

Historically, authorities in the United States have focused on environmental extremism from the far left. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) conducted acts of sabotage, largely arson, against infrastructure that represented environmental damage. Their defining philosophies centered on biocentrism and deep ecology, which criticizes industrial society for harming natural ecosystems. In 2002, the FBI defined eco-terrorism as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

Notably, though, the ELF was never charged for being connected to any deaths, as their focus was on targeting infrastructure through arson. The ELF was crushed by Operation Backfire, the FBI operation which tied ELF members to over 40 criminal acts with an estimated cost of $48 million. But radical environmental activism continued, often tied to social justice issues, such as when two women damaged portions of the Dakota Access Pipeline during protests over how the project threatened Indigenous communities.

However, the left does not have an exclusive claim to environmentally motivated extremism. On the far right, ecofascism connects environmentalism with themes of racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy. Ecofascists see technology as weakening ties between nature and people, which they believe will threaten the white race. The first modern mass casualty attacker to explicitly define himself as an ecofascist was Brenton Tarrant, who conducted the 2019 Christchurch shooting which killed 51 people. Tarrant’s attack, which was notably live-streamed, has been the inspiration for several copycat attacks and manifestos. The 2019 El Paso Walmart shooter, Patrick Crusius, killed 23 people; the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooter, Payton Gendron, killed 10 people; and the 2026 Islamic Center of San Diego shooters, Cain Clark and Caleb Vasquez, killed three people—all in the name of ecofascist ideals.

Historical precedent and widespread concerns about tech-fueled climate change may encourage violent extremists to focus on the tech sector. With historical precedence in extremism about the environment across the ideological spectrum, and with climate change being exacerbated by the needs of technological innovation, violent extremists today could focus on the infrastructure required for technology. This is especially true at a time when US administrations have deprioritized combating climate change and AI data center construction has been lauded. The deep disagreement between a majority of Americans—both Republican and Democrats—and the federal government presents a challenge to the social contract which underpins democracy.

Intersection of anti-establishment and anti-tech themes in extremism

Perhaps no story demonstrates anti-establishment thinking in regard to technology more than that of the Luddites. The 19th century Luddite movement smashed machines as part of a broader struggle for workers’ rights. Oft overlooked, though, is that the Luddites resorted to machine-breaking when other, nonviolent avenues failed. When elites and leaders did not heed concerns from the citizenry, anti-establishment beliefs led people to action.

The Luddites were opposed to labor exploitation by a ruling class of industrialists; today, the far left and far right exhibit their own distinct forms of anti-establishment thinking. On the far left, when arsonists set fire to Teslas or Tesla property during the larger, non-violent, protests against Elon Musk’s leadership position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), then-attorney general Pam Bondi labeled the attacks as domestic terrorism. On the far right, perhaps the most potent example is QAnon, which lauded President Trump in his first term as saving the United States from a secret cabal of pedophilic and Satan-worshipping elites. QAnon believers were among those who participated in the January 6 Capitol insurrection.

Trust in government has been low for several decades, but recent assessments place it among the lowest. Brewing distrust in government contributes to anti-establishment thinking as people do not see leaders as upholding their end of the social contract and want to establish deeper societal changes. As questions about the tech-oligarchy and their power connected to government flourish, anti-establishment thinking begins to center on these leaders.

A fragile social contract cultivates extremist attitudes

The risk of rising anti-tech violence stems from legitimate grievances. AI’s still nascent but hugely consequential socioeconomic impact, the accelerating effects of climate change, and decreasing belief in the legitimacy of the US political establishment are potent drivers of extremist violence targeting emerging technologies and the infrastructure, firms, and people behind them.

A growing number of Americans are feeling more concerned than excited about AI use in daily life, with the belief that AI will negatively impact society across areas from education to jobs, elections, and personal relationships. At the most extreme end are existential concerns about AI, which are not unfounded. Attempts in 2023 and in 2026 to pause AI development until it can be governed responsibly were not heeded. Thus grievances continue to be exacerbated.

Anti-AI violence is exacerbated by the inability to hold an AI system itself accountable. When AI causes harm, who is to blame? Further, with the fast-paced movement of technology infrastructure, there is minimal opportunity to create well-rounded regulations. The issues of accountability and tempo are causing AI to be a driver of political violence, as legitimate grievances are not being addressed.

Threat mitigation without securitization

There are ways to mitigate this threat without over-securitizing it. The vast majority of opposition to AI is completely nonviolent, and so opponents must be allowed to execute their First Amendment right of free speech.

Yet Futurism has counted 37 arrests stemming from data center related protests in the United States, with an additional 12 cases of police intervention to prevent confrontations with civic leaders. This number includes cases like Lux Claridge, a high school physics teacher in Kansas who was arrested after repeatedly clapping in support of data center opponents during a city commission meeting, which was deemed disruptive. Similarly, reports have found that security agencies are monitoring anti-Flock activist activities across social media. Over-securitizing opposition to AI is a mistake which only reinforces the view that technology is being utilized unjustly against the public.

Anti-tech extremist violence is a real threat. However, a majority of people have legitimate concerns about technology use in the world and the distribution of power within it, and they express those concerns non-violently. Democracies are at their best when they respond to citizen concerns instead of policing them. As such, leaders should address the grievances at the root of this backlash. The countervailing tendency to overstep regulatory prudence largely stems from the perceived urgency of building AI systems faster and better than China’s models. But it creates another risk: AI’s quick, ubiquitous integration into all aspects of society feeds the possibility of political violence.

It is possible to respond to concerns about technology with thoughtful legislation. States are standing up to federal efforts to accelerate data center construction, and Flock has responded to backlash by updating its privacy and security policies. But the secondary and tertiary effects of AI also deserve attention. Sustainability in technological innovation should be encouraged and rewarded in order to offset impacts from the climate crisis. Similarly, political sensitivity to constituent concerns should be strengthened—and the undue influence of tech elites on government policy, lessened.