#45 Society and Technology

As the weight of technology in our lives increases, are we leaving our reading habits far behind at the same pace? In this era where AI-powered chatbots have become part of daily life, one of the most frequently discussed issues is the marked decline in reading rates. In a时代 built on social media and constant interaction, there is a widespread belief that the practice of reading, which demands attention and patience, has been replaced by rapidly consumed, superficial streams of information. We believe we are squandering our time in unnoticed flows rather than investing it in meaningful pursuits. But how solid is this judgment? Can a habit that for centuries has shaped our individual and collective memory and deepened our way of thinking be abandoned so easily? Is reading a practice quietly retreating in the face of technological transformation, or is it merely changing its form?

A recent blog post argues that reading is not a habit that can be easily abandoned. Those who claim that social media or AI-powered tools can replace reading are, perhaps unknowingly, accepting an experience of extreme superficiality. After all, such platforms point to a terrain where knowledge is consumed rapidly but never gains depth. Yet throughout history, humans have shown a reflex to protect the unique against the fleeting and the worthless, and have persistently upheld what is meaningful. Reading stands precisely at this point as a rich activity that layers human existence and intensifies our engagement with thought. In this sense, reading is not a pursuit easily discarded in the shadow of passing trends or technological innovations.

One of the most popular internet theories today holds that reading culture has ended and therefore civilization is in decline. According to this narrative, digital technologies have shattered our attention spans and taken away our capacity for complex thought. Yet when we examine this pessimistic picture closely, we see that the situation is far from apocalyptic. Although our minds may be programmed to believe in stories of decline, the data tells us something entirely different: book sales in 2025 are surpassing pre-pandemic levels, independent bookstores are multiplying, and even bookshops are regaining their central role.

It is impossible to deny the decline in reading rates, but the severity of this decline is often exaggerated. Research shows that those who read many books have slightly reduced their reading, but this does not indicate a radical rupture in society’s reading habits. Interestingly, the largest drop in reading time did not occur when smartphones entered our lives, but in the mid-2000s when broadband internet became widespread. Thus, there is no sudden collapse. Instead, there is a more balanced, gradually receding tide. The longer the dissolution, the longer the recovery will take.

The fear that digital platforms will completely take over us is gradually losing its grip. Social media apps are no longer as satisfying as they once were, having moved from the stage of attracting users to the stage of extracting profit from them. People are becoming aware that the time spent in front of screens generates spiritual fatigue. Books, however, possess the “Lindy effect”; they have withstood every technological assault from radio to television and continue to endure. Because the human mind’s desire to focus on words on paper is a far more fundamental need than transient digital trends.

Alongside visual and auditory formats, texts may be seen as having the unique capacity to present ideas in a more structured manner. Looking back at history, we notice that the foundation of many enduring ideas is typically a written work. Many processes—from belief systems to social change—appear more systematic once they are committed to writing. Although video and audio content are highly impactful, it can be argued that texts carry a distinctive weight in the deepening and dissemination of ideas.

In conclusion, no matter how addictive TikTok videos or boundless digital content may be, there exists in the depths of the human soul a hunger that can only be satisfied through reading. The claim that reading is dead underestimates how deeply humans crave meaningful experiences. Five thousand years after the Sumerians first carved their cuneiform tablets, we still hold firm to the written word. As long as there are stubborn readers who choose a book amid the digital noise, our allegiance to words will endure.

One of the most intense topics in the technology world recently has been the issue of AI chips. The struggle between China and the United States, which we have frequently addressed in previous bulletins and articles, remains as heated as ever. This month’s developments regarding AI chips are a continuation of steps taken by Trump after his election. The US government has permitted the sale of Nvidia’s H200 chips, specifically designed for AI training, to China on the condition that they are not used for military purposes. As previously noted, the US has sought to strike a balance by imposing additional taxes and quotas on chip exports, aiming to sustain corporate profitability and maintain technological dominance in the AI field.

According to regulations announced on January 13, the automatic denial system applied to Chinese companies has been lifted, replaced by a “case-by-case review” system.

To enable chip companies like Nvidia to protect their markets and support American interests, conditions have been imposed: the total volume of chips sold to China must not exceed half of the total supply in the US market, and all exported chips must undergo security testing.

Donald Trump’s faction has sparked opposition in Congress with these liberalizing moves. Last year, members of Congress issued a statement advocating a complete ban on selling AI chips to China. Last week, they introduced the “AI Overwatch Act” to restrict this policy. This bill grants Congress broad oversight authority over foreign trade, including the power to review export licenses for up to 30 days and to veto them. Additionally, the bill directly imposes a two-year ban on the sale of Nvidia’s Blackwell series chips—the most advanced AI chip architecture currently available—to China. Congressional members believe this technology would significantly enhance China’s military capabilities.

On the other hand, Beijing’s strategy of “technological independence” in response to these shifting policies continues. China is no longer merely reacting to American sanctions; it is actively imposing restrictions on the use of American chips to protect its own ecosystem. The China Cybersecurity Administration has directly advised domestic tech giants to avoid American chips in critical infrastructure due to security concerns and instead adopt processors developed by local manufacturers such as Huawei’s Ascend series.

At this point, the situation has become ironic: while the US tries to prevent chips from reaching China, China is also restricting their use to safeguard its own security and technological advancement. Chinese experts claim that domestic chips have now reached performance levels capable of competing with Nvidia’s older models. This puts companies like Nvidia in a dilemma: on one side, Washington’s export restrictions; on the other, Beijing’s pressure to use local products—both narrowing the company’s operational space in the world’s largest market.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s efforts to protect American interests while maintaining commercial ties have drawn sharp criticism from both Democratic and Republican factions. As the gap widens between the “Chinese capital” that tech giants need to finance their investments and Congress’s national security priorities, uncertainty on this issue deepens. Ultimately, it is clear that AI chips will continue to play a significant role in US-China relations in 2026.

Australia’s regulation banning children under 16 from using major social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook represents a global first. The government’s intention in implementing this policy is clear: the design of social media platforms, which keep young people glued to screens, increases exposure to harmful content; cyberbullying, exploitation, and psychological risks have become serious social problems. However, since the law came into effect, the reality has revealed a significant tension between the intended outcome and practical enforceability.

Under the new regulation, responsibility for enforcement lies entirely with the platforms, without imposing penalties on children or their parents. Companies that fail to take necessary steps to block users under 16 face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars. This indicates that the system relies heavily on age verification technologies such as facial recognition, video selfies, behavioral analysis, or uploading identity documents.

This is emerging as the system’s most vulnerable point. Numerous examples reported in the Australian press and international media show that children can easily bypass these systems. Makeup, false eyelashes, drawn beards, facial expressions, or simple responses to camera prompts are sufficient to trick facial recognition systems into identifying 11–14-year-olds as “over 18.” Even the government’s own reports acknowledge that facial analysis technology is among the least reliable methods for identifying adolescents.

Another common method is children using their parents’ or relatives’ accounts. Parental control apps and experts report that some families ignore this issue, even supporting it. This situation strengthens the possibility that the law, while aiming to protect children, may push them toward less monitored and riskier usage patterns. Indeed, many young people openly admit they continue using social media via VPNs or by creating accounts with fake birth dates.

Another issue is the extent to which social media companies are willing to internalize and enforce the ban. Although companies like Meta and Snap have announced the closure of millions of accounts, critics argue these steps are primarily aimed at reducing regulatory pressure. As a former Meta executive pointed out, the projected fines are of questionable deterrent value when compared to the companies’ daily revenues. Thus, it remains uncertain how willing platforms are to implement stricter and more costly systems to fully prevent children from creating accounts.

The scope of the law also raises separate debates. Excluding platforms such as Roblox, Discord, certain gaming platforms, and AI chat applications limits the protective effect of the regulation. Critics argue that while children are being removed from social media, they are being redirected toward other digital spaces carrying similar risks.

Ultimately, Australia’s social media ban is being closely watched by many countries, including Türkiye. It is more likely that this policy will serve as a model for others, evolving through new regulations as implementation challenges arise.