This Insight investigates recent trends in anti-technology extremism, such as attacks on data centres and the firebombing of Sam Altman’s house. It assesses this current trajectory and the chances of further escalation, then focuses on potential responses, including the roles of key stakeholders and the dangers of over-securitising legitimate concerns about technology in the wake of these events.
Recent Episodes in Context
Anti-technology violence is not a recent phenomenon; it has existed for decades, if not centuries. However, over the past fifteen years, there has been a quiet rise in the number of people, movements, and networks adopting anti-technology extremist views. Such views are generally based on the belief that technology threatens humanity’s material, ontological, and existential security. Far from being a monolithic phenomenon, anti-technology extremism offers a flexible ideological framework in which the eradication of technology is the ultimate goal. While anti-technology positions have recently blossomed within ideological milieus such as insurrectionary anarchism, eco-extremism, and eco-fascism, they are not limited to these groups.
Within anti-technology extremism, technology is generally viewed as a cohesive, self-sustaining system – a ‘mega-machine’ in which all parts depend on one another, and humans are reduced to mere cogs. However, this does not imply that all technologies are perceived as equally harmful. As a powerful symbol of the technological system, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently become a major focus of anti-tech attention. There are two main reasons behind this development. First, a recent study argues that AI-related grievances intersect with issues of economic inequality, institutional power, and social and personal concerns, affecting all three dimensions – material, ontological, and existential – of security. Additionally, AI embodies the ongoing Fifth Industrial Revolution perhaps more than any other technology (at least, on a symbolic level), representing the convergence of digital, physical, and biological systems. This makes it a prime symbol of techno-anxieties and the fears associated with unchecked technological advancement.
AI-related technology, infrastructure, or representatives have thus become primary targets for anti-technology extremists over the years. However, most of these attacks tend to remain low-profile and often go unnoticed. This was the case until recently, when the attack on OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s house brought anti-technology extremism to the fore, drawing unusual attention to it. What is important to understand is that, rather than representing a sudden, dramatic shift, this incident marks another step in the ongoing, quiet escalation of anti-technology violence over recent years.
Around the time of Altman’s attack, several other incidents related to anti-technology extremism took place without attracting as much attention. On 6 April, a shooting in Indianapolis was reportedly linked to the controversial construction of a data centre. On the same night, an anarchist cell allegedly sabotaged several electrical facilities near Bourges, France, causing a power outage at nearby armament factories. A few days earlier, an anarcho-primitivist was detained in Rome for allegedly planning terrorist acts influenced by Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber – the US terrorist who waged a one-man war against technology from 1978 to 1996. The suspect arrested in Rome allegedly ran an Instagram page with over 200.000 followers that expressed extremist sentiments. Earlier this year, a group called Vulkangruppe, which had previously carried out significant sabotage against Tesla in 2024, caused a power outage in Berlin by burning power cables, leaving thousands without electricity. A more detailed analysis of these, as well as previous attacks and sabotage, is available here.
The following examines the significance of these recent events in light of both pre-existing patterns of anti-technology extremism and the potential for future escalations.
Current Trends Build on Pre-Existing Two-Track Violence
The violence seen in recent anti-technology attacks is not new, and such incidents exhibit patterns similar to those of past attacks. Overall, anti-technology violence has traditionally followed two main paths: assaults on infrastructure and tech companies, and attacks on individuals who represent technology. The attack on Altman attracted significant media coverage, as is often the case when high-profile figures are targeted. However, CEOs, tech industry representatives, as well as academics and researchers have long been targets of anti-technology violence, a trend that is at least as old as the Unabomber. The less prominent status of previously targeted individuals and the low number of lethal attacks – despite some notable exceptions – explain why these actions have historically attracted less attention.
This two-track violence is likely to continue characterising anti-technology extremism.
Although the attack on Altman did not harm the OpenAI CEO, there is a danger that it could inspire sympathetic audiences, thereby increasing the risk of copycat incidents. After all, Daniel Moreno-Gama himself – the man accused ot the attack – was reportedly inspired by Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing Brian Thomson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Months before the incident, Moreno-Gama reportedly suggested ‘Luigi’ing’ CEOs during a podcast interview, openly and somewhat explicitly calling for violence against them. Moreover, Moreno-Gama was equally explicit about the effect he intended to achieve with his attack, allegedly stating in his manifesto that “(…) if I am to encourage others to kill and commit crimes, I must set an example and demonstrate my sincerity in my message.”
Online responses to Altman’s attack showed sympathy for the attacker, with some even suggesting “this should be a nightly occurrence.” Such reactions also highlight how CEOs who become polarising or controversial can be framed by some online communities as legitimate targets of violence. Yet CEOs are not the only targets; researchers, though less visible, have also faced threats. The justification often cited is the crucial role that innovators and researchers play in sustaining technological civilisation. Historical instances and ideological motives indicate that the threat of future attacks on researchers, CEOs, and other tech representatives remains a concern.
Anti-technology violence against infrastructure has primarily targeted crucial assets, including data centres, energy grids, and research centres. The motivation to attack these sites stems from their role as “incubators of progress” and as cornerstones of the technological system’s architecture (p. 73). Targeting critical infrastructure, therefore, follows a more strategic logic. As these assets are viewed as the foundation of technological civilisation, their removal could trigger the system’s collapse. For example, shutting down enough data centres would reduce AI capabilities, affecting systems ranging from surveillance to military applications. These crucial nodes of the system — sometimes called the “heart of the mega-machine” — are not fixed and can shift, reflecting the development of progress itself. In this sense, the recent growth in opposition to AI-related infrastructure reflects the central role AI is carving out for itself as a primary catalyst for anti-technology extremism at this juncture.
Both these patterns of violence – that is, attacks on infrastructure and tech companies and tech representatives – are likely to persist in anti-technology violence. For one, they align seamlessly with anti-technology beliefs from both an ideological and strategic standpoint. Attacking high-profile figures like CEOs, researchers, and innovators can amplify anti-technology ideology. Such targets can also appeal to individuals with grievances against AI. As for attacks on critical infrastructure, the underlying accelerationist mindset common within anti-technology extremist milieus provides a persistent ideological rationale for such attacks. Influential figures like the Unabomber, who advocated the concept of ‘hit where it hurts’, help reinforce this trend. Besides ideological and strategic reasons, critical infrastructure occupies a prominent place in extremist thinking because of its perceived potential to produce widespread societal and economic disruption.
This leads to a natural question: what needs to be done to counter anti-technology extremism?
Towards a Balanced Approach to Counter Anti-Technology Extremism
Countering anti-technology extremism should rest on four pillars: obtain a clear picture of the phenomenon; increase resilience and redundancy in critical infrastructure; secure potential human targets; and acknowledge the non-violent nature of several legitimate tech-related concerns, whilst identifying and containing anti-technology threats with the potential for violent escalation. In unpacking each pillar, the discussion below will also identify the actors that should be at the forefront of these efforts.
First and foremost, we must clearly understand the evolving threat. The intellectual and historical roots have been examined – arguably an essential step in grasping anti-technology extremism. Additionally, recent studies have begun to assess technology- and AI-related grievances and their impact on political violence.
Nonetheless, our understanding of the number, scale, and distribution of attacks remains limited. The scarce scholarly focus on this subject has yet to produce a comprehensive global database of anti-technology attacks. Many anti-technology attacks have often been mislabeled or misclassified. Even the Unabomber – a key figure in modern anti-technology extremism – has frequently been categorised as an environmentalist, instead of an anti-technology extremist. It is thus essential to revisit and recode existing databases to better understand the physical manifestations of anti-technology extremism worldwide. Given the hybrid ideological nature of many contemporary terrorists and networks, it is also important to investigate how anti-technology extremism interacts with other perspectives within these complex worldviews. Scholars and practitioners should be at the forefront of this effort.
Moving on, the second and third pillars should concentrate on protecting the targets, respectively, critical infrastructure and tech representatives. As for critical infrastructure, securing this target is also prudent in light of the rise in hybrid threats and state-sponsored hostile actions targeting essential systems. Efforts to secure critical infrastructure should be based on two core principles: resilience – anticipating, adapting, and recovering from attacks – and redundancy – avoiding a single point of failure that could lead to broader breakdowns.
Additionally, enhanced proactive protection for tech representatives must be implemented. This requires careful threat assessments to determine the possibility and extent of potential, actual, and imminent threats. To do so, we must promote a “whole-of-society” approach where key stakeholders, including private businesses, academia, and government agencies, contribute to a collaborative strategy through “intelligence analysis; aggregation and communication of intelligence; and reception and absorption of intelligence among key societal actors.”
The final pillar should emphasise balance. On the one hand, responding to anti-technology extremism requires marginalising and dismantling the terrorist networks behind it. On the other hand, many legal and non-violent actors voice genuine concerns about technology, including fears of job loss, environmental harm, loss of control, and AI-related existential risks. Similarly, a large portion of the opposition to data centres has been non-violent and linked to their high societal and environmental costs, rather than to anti-technology extremism.
These concerns should not be dismissed as technophobia; they deserve serious consideration. Equally, the groups, organisations, and activists calling for greater transparency, accountability, and regulation should not be mistaken for or treated as anti-technology extremists; they should instead be engaged with. Doing so, without resorting to securitising measures, is essential for two reasons. Firstly, those negatively affected by progress deserve a voice in shaping it. Secondly, ignoring, condemning, or repressing their concerns might escalate grievances and increase the risk of anti-technology extremism. This is crucial, as there is already fertile ground for further anti-technology radicalisation, with large parts of the population increasingly concerned about the impact of AI and other advanced technologies on their lives. There also appears to be a generational dimension to the resistance to AI, with many in Gen Z reportedly feeling especially concerned or angry. Crucially, most of these voices do not advocate violence. Framing anti-tech sentiments as security threats only amplifies the narratives of the most radical factions. Tech companies, political leaders, and all stakeholders should collaborate to promote a more inclusive and fair dialogue on technological innovation.
Ultimately, recent attacks should be viewed not as one-off incidents but as indicators of a broader rise in extremism rooted in deep fears about technological advancements. Although the risk of escalation persists, a successful response must involve understanding the threat, protecting infrastructure and individuals, and distinguishing between violent extremism and legitimate public concerns. Neglecting this balance could reinforce the grievances that anti-technology extremists seek to manipulate.
–
Mauro Lubrano is a Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Politics, Languages, and International Studies at the University of Bath. His research focuses on anti-technology extremism, leaderless resistance, and innovation processes in violent non-state actors.
–
Are you a tech company interested in strengthening your capacity to counter terrorist and violent extremist activity online? Apply for GIFCT membership to join over 30 other tech platforms working together to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting online platforms by leveraging technology, expertise, and cross-sector partnerships.