'Homo tecnologicus': owners of the tool or slaves of the algorithm?

In mid-March, from the CCOO Teaching Federation in collaboration with the Federation of Pedagogical Renewal Movements and Ecologists in Action, we held the congress Technology and Education: an Ethical-Critical vision with speakers of the highest level. This congress was not for simple academic inertia, nor just another date on the calendar, but the result of a growing concern about the direction that new technologies have taken in the last decade. As we are immersed in a digital revolution, comparable to the industrial revolution of the 19th century. A revolution that is reconfiguring the human being into what we could call an Homo tecnologicus. However, this evolution does not seem to be neutral, and we must ask ourselves the question: Are we the ones who handle the tool, or is it the tool that shapes us?It is fundamental to understand that nothing in the digital world is neutral, both on the internet and in new artificial intelligence, information biases occur. This means that the results we see depend on sources that are not always objective, and today this power is concentrated in the hands of a few private companies, which by chance or causality, are among the richest on the planet: Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).Some companies whose business model is not service, but the extraction and storage of data susceptible to be sold; because we often fall into the trap of believing that their services are free. However, in the digital economy, if you don't pay for the product, it's because you are the product. These companies have created authentic 'information farms' through algorithms – these invisible codes that decide what we see and what we don't – where they collect each of our data, movements and tastes to then sell this data to third parties. Databases designed to control our tastes and direct our consumption in a continuous, induced and compulsive manner; taking advantage of the fact that practically everyone has a smartphone available 24 hours a day.The lack of transparency in algorithms is not just a commercial problem; it can pose a democratic risk. This digital surveillance can have real consequences in fields as sensitive as law, economics, the world of work..., areas that must be urgently regulated. We cannot allow computer code to be a source of discrimination; if we do not scrutinize these processes, algorithms can become weapons of manipulation and bias, instead of instruments of progress. We need a legal framework that ensures technological processes are transparent, controllable by the user, and, above all, respectful of ethical principles. The storage of our data must be under the surveillance of representative social institutions, and not exclusively in the hands of private interests.But the impact is not only virtual, it is physical and environmental; technological development does not only stay on our screens; it has a physical and painful footprint on our planet. This excessive development often ignores that basic resources like water and energy are limited. Thousands of square kilometers are needed to store servers connected 24/7 with the necessary cooling for these data centers to function, with the resulting CO₂ emissions and the necessary use of nuclear energy for continuous operation.To manufacture batteries and devices themselves, materials such as coltan, cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other 'rare earths' are exploited; materials that are mostly extracted in mines where child labor is encouraged and toxic waste dumps are generated that severely pollute the environment; a bill that is mainly being paid by underdeveloped countries. And it can only be a true evolution if it is sustainable and respectful of human rights throughout its production chain. It is essential to responsibly manage waste, resource consumption, and the water footprint. Digital ethics must necessarily be ecological ethics.One of the most critical points of this digital revolution is how technology affects the most vulnerable, and this vulnerability is most evident in minors and especially in childhood. Digital platforms use seduction to trap us, the design of the infinite scroll –this screen that never ends and that loads content non-stop– is designed to capture our attention and generate what we now know as digital addiction. This compulsive behavior makes us lose track of time, generates immediate reward stimuli, and abusive consumption of these. The symptoms are already contrasted: anxiety when not connected, social isolation, neglect of responsibilities, lack of sleep, behavioral disorders, learning problems, lack of concentration... more than enough evidence to address this problem immediately.As educators, we view with concern how these effects, derived from screen saturation, manifest in classrooms; global reports such as PISA or GEM confirm a widespread decline in student competencies since the massive implementation of technology in educational centers. By moving so abruptly from analog to digital, essential construction processes and neural relationships for developing cognitive abilities in childhood have been lost. In many parts of the world, the return to paper, pencil, and textbooks is already being considered. And it seems we have made a conceptual error: we have confused educating in digital competence with educating through digital competence.It is not about criminalizing technology, but about demanding that it be at the service of people, social justice, and cultural plurality. It is urgent to legislate, both nationally and internationally, so that our data is protected and processes are transparent. We need to reclaim the role of technology to build a better world, and not as a tool that conditions our freedom and future.It is imperative that we stop being passive spectators of this transformation, we need brave legislation and strict regulation that ensures that technology is a driver of social justice, plurality and sustainability, and not a tool for manipulation. Technology must be a bridge to knowledge and equality; it is time for the Homo tecnologicus to regain sovereignty over their data, to demand a digital environment that protects children and respects the planet's limits. Only then will we achieve machines working for us, being owners of the tool and not slaves to its algorithms.