If you're not subscribed yet this newsletter delivers mildly opinionated thoughts, links you might’ve missed, interviews with people who are way smarter than me and the occasional rant from someone who used to believe tech would save the world.

Subscribe

This time, we’re talking about Universal Basic Income. It sounds progressive, feels generous, and makes Silicon Valley CEOs feel very clever. But what if it’s not a solution but just a well-branded distraction funded by the people who broke the system in the first place? Without further ado, let’s get into it.

Sam Altman thinks he has a plan.

The CEO of OpenAI, one of the most powerful figures shaping the next economy, has long been an advocate for Universal Basic Income. In fact, he helped fund one of the largest UBI trials in the U.S., giving participants $1,000 a month over multiple years. When asked about the motivation, Altman made it clear: “My view is that AI will generate enough wealth for everyone to have what they need. The question is just how it gets distributed.”

Elon Musk has echoed that sentiment, famously predicting that UBI is inevitable. “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation. I’m not sure what else one would do.” In more recent interviews, he’s even gone further: “In a benign scenario… none of us will have a job.… But... there will be universal high income, not universal basic income.”

From their vantage point, the future is already clear. Automation, especially through artificial intelligence, will upend the labor market. Millions of jobs — truck driving, copywriting, legal review, accounting — are at risk. Faced with this looming disruption, the tech elite is trying to pre-empt the fallout with a seductive offer: basic income for all, funded by the fruits of automation. No work, no problem.

But while this sounds generous, almost utopian, it conceals a much more convenient truth for them. Universal Basic Income, as proposed by many in Silicon Valley, doesn’t challenge the structure that creates inequality. It simply pays you to accept it.

They like UBI because it solves just enough to stop people from asking harder questions.

Instead of confronting the consequences of concentrated ownership, monopolistic platforms, and the erosion of public infrastructure, UBI wraps a complex crisis in a monthly direct deposit. A system that extracts value from every click, swipe, and gig-task offers you cash in return. But nothing structural. You get €1,200. They keep everything else.

Altman’s trial showed some improvements in mental health and financial stress, but it didn’t move the needle on housing, employment, or security. The payouts helped people survive, but not thrive. Even Altman’s own phrasing reveals the limits of the vision: “basic compute” and “basic income” as rations, doled out from above, never debated, never collectively shaped.

There’s a growing body of left-progressive criticism that cuts through this. As sociologist James Foley writes, UBI offers “a post-political shortcut.” It is a way to appear radical without any of the messiness of actual redistribution. It removes the need to organize, to bargain, to legislate structural change. It turns social justice into software.

The concern isn’t theoretical. Many UBI proposals come hand in hand with plans to reduce or even eliminate public services. In this vision, healthcare, childcare, and education are no longer rights. They become products. If you want them, use your basic income to buy them. If you can’t afford them, well, that’s not the system’s problem. As one 2020 report by Public Services International warned, “UBI without robust public services becomes a neoliberal paradise.”

And then there’s the math. A meaningful UBI — say, $2,000 per month — is prohibitively expensive in most current budget models unless paired with heavy taxation on wealth, capital gains, or corporate profits. Notably, this is something many UBI proponents do not propose. What remains is the worst of both worlds: a watered-down stipend that fails to lift people out of poverty, while justifying the rollback of existing services. A monthly check that can’t even cover rent in Berlin or San Francisco.

Anything under $2,000 per month is just a tech-funded distraction.

And this distraction has political consequences. It pacifies. It individualizes. It encourages the idea that capitalism’s worst outcomes can be patched over with cash. No need to talk about power, ownership, or class.

What would a better future look like? One that doesn’t rely on handouts from our self-appointed digital landlords?

It starts by refusing the premise that automation must lead to mass unemployment. Technology doesn’t destroy jobs. It transforms them. The real question is: who owns the tools, who sets the rules, and who benefits? If AI is going to increase productivity, why not shorten the workweek? If tech profits are surging, why not tax them meaningfully and reinvest in public infrastructure?

A progressive future won’t be built on passive income. It will be built on collective ownership, universal services, labor rights, and democratic control over digital infrastructure. UBI isn’t a bad idea because it gives people money. It becomes a bad idea when it replaces everything else. When it turns into a substitute for justice, not a tool in service of it.

To be clear, the desire for a more humane system is real. People are exhausted. Wages stagnate, rents soar, burnout is everywhere. UBI feels like relief. But we shouldn’t confuse relief with repair. We don’t need monthly hush money. We need systems that work. For everyone.

And we shouldn’t outsource the future of justice to the people who built the problem in the first place.

Liked this piece?
Send it to a friend who still thinks UBI is the future. Or to that one tech bro in your life. You know the one.

You can also find me on LinkedIn or Instagram, where I try to make sense of tech, power, and all the strange things we now call “innovation.”

Oh, and: my book Broligarchy is coming out soon in Germany. It’s a mix of personal stories, tech-industry deep dives, and probably a few opinions I’ll regret later.
Would love if you kept an eye out for it.

Thanks for reading, as always – Aya

Welcome to the first issue of Tech, Actually!

Every week, I’ll share what caught my eye: headlines, rabbit holes, quotes I can’t stop thinking about and the occasional unfiltered commentary. So whether you’re deep in the industry or just tech-curious with a healthy dose of skepticism: welcome.

Subscribe to newsletter

The US just legalized corporate crypto.

Here’s what happened and why it matters.

Big news from Washington: the US passed its first major crypto laws (New York Times). Until now, the crypto industry operated in a weird grey zone, part finance, part tech, part “we’ll figure it out later.” That’s now changing.

Last week, Congress passed three bills:

1. The GENIUS Act lays out rules for stablecoins—digital tokens that are tied to real money (like dollars or euros). The idea is: if you want to issue your own digital dollar, you now need a license, real reserves in the bank, and regular audits. In other words: only big players with deep pockets and lawyers can play.

2. The CLARITY Act decides who regulates which coins. Some will be treated like securities (stocks), others like commodities (like gold). This helps companies avoid lawsuits and helps regulators avoid turf wars.

3. The Anti-CBDC Act says the US government is not allowed to create its own digital dollar. Why? Lawmakers say it could be used for surveillance or centralized control. So: no public version of digital money, but private versions are now fully welcome.

Read that part again. We’re banning the possibility of a public digital dollar because it might one day compete with private finance. Imagine outlawing public transport so Uber feels safer. That’s where we’re at.

📺 Meanwhile, in Real Life

In this section, I look at how economic and tech developments show up in our everyday lives. Sometimes it’s subtle, sometimes it’s absurd. Always worth noticing.

Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker warns that casual posting has vanished under polished content, fear of cringe, algorithm fatigue, and global crises.

If there’s no guarantee that our friends will even see what we post, then what is the incentive to keep doing it? When we do, we are ever conscious of the need to please the algorithm or else get lost in the void.

Quick poll:
Have you recently felt reluctant to post something trivial (like a breakfast photo), even though nothing major happened? Hit reply and feel free to add why in one sentence. I’ll share the results next time.

Musk’s "America Party"

– Politics as a Platform Business

A few weeks ago, Elon Musk announced the America Party as his answer to a broken political system. Disruption, innovation, independence – the usual Silicon Valley vocabulary. But take a closer look, and it feels less like a democratic alternative and more like a power move in platform logic.

The US system is designed to keep newcomers out. A viable third party would take years, legal firepower, and billions in funding. But Musk doesn’t need to win. Just the threat of entering the race gives him influence especially in swing states, where a few points can tip the scale.

His platform? Classic libertarian talking points: smaller government, lower taxes, fewer rules. Not exactly revolutionary. More like GOP-lite, with a Tesla bumper sticker. The real play comes from tech strategy: create dependencies, own the infrastructure, control visibility. If that logic enters politics, we’re not talking about parties anymore. We’re talking about platforms.

Musk doesn’t need a majority. He just needs to be unavoidable…just like every platform he’s ever built.

📰 This is only a shortened version. You can read the full German column Code&Capital in my biweekly newsletter on Surplus.

Code&Capital

I’m still experimenting with the format, so if you’ve made it this far – thank you. I’d love to hear what you want more of.

Book recommendations? TikToks worth watching? Just great podcast episodes? Hit reply and let me know what you’re into.

Auf Wiedersehen :)