In a world where neural networks write code and accessing government services requires fingerprint scans, a movement advocating for a conscious rejection of digital identifiers and AI assistants is gaining momentum. This emerging social group prioritizes "opacity" over convenience.

ForkLog explores why resistance to digitalization is becoming a mark of elitism, how the "new Luddites" are fighting for the right to anonymity, and why cash is turning into a tool for political protest.

The Struggle for Reason, Not Against Machines

The term "Luddites" is often mistakenly equated with technophobia. However, 19th-century workers destroyed machines not out of fear of progress, but because manufacturers implemented technologies to lower wages and reduce production costs. Modern resistance shares the same roots. People are not against technology per se, but against how corporations and governments use it to control and devalue human labor.

Students and professionals are increasingly opting out of generative AI: according to The Washington Post, the number of those who deliberately avoid neural networks is rising. 50% of American adults are more concerned about the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence than excited by it, up from 37% in 2021.

Despite the popularity of tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, some IT professionals report decreased work efficiency. Programmers say they are forced to spend time correcting errors made by AI assistants.

Experts also worry about skill degradation among junior employees. Juniors relying on AI assistants risk not mastering the fundamentals necessary for a deep understanding of their profession and future mentorship.

Government employees and those handling sensitive data avoid chatbots due to the risk of leaks and inaccuracies. A U.S. federal agency employee involved in statistics emphasized that the inclusion of fabricated data generated by AI in official reports would instantly destroy public trust.

Resistance to AI is becoming part of business strategy for creative professions. Designers and artists use Not by AI badges to highlight the value of human labor. Initiative founder Allen Xu believes that without human-generated content, the quality of training data for future models will inevitably decline.

Source: the website of the Not By AI movement.

The argument is simple: why read something that no one bothered to write? Rejecting algorithms becomes a mark of quality. Text written by a human is valued more highly, akin to handcrafted furniture compared to mass-produced items from IKEA. Quality researchers reject AI not out of fear, but from the conviction that meaning-making is an exclusively human prerogative that cannot be delegated to statistical models.

Digital ID as a Collar

The public struggle is also unfolding around Digital ID systems. In December 2025, the UK government's plans to implement mandatory digital cards sparked unprecedented public outrage. A petition against the initiative gathered nearly 3 million signatures, making it one of the most popular in parliamentary history. Protests were supported by human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch.

Critics labeled the introduction of such systems as an "un-British" move and a violation of fundamental freedoms. They drew parallels with China's social credit system, warning that linking access to basic services (transport, hotels, jobs) to a digital profile could lead to discrimination against citizens for political or other reasons.

Opposition came from conservatives, Greens, Liberal Democrats, the Reform UK party, and a significant portion of backbench Labour MPs. Parliamentarians emphasized that the introduction of digital IDs was not included in the winning party's election manifesto, meaning the government lacks a mandate for such a significant expansion of state powers.

Human rights advocates from the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the government's plan to launch a digital identification system. They warned that the functions of digital IDs would inevitably expand. What starts as a "right to work verification" quickly turns into a universal key, without which one cannot access the internet, buy a train ticket, or receive medical care.

Gaby Hinsliff from The Guardian also disapproved of the Digital ID initiative. She argued that such databases are a gift to any authoritarian regime. Tools created by politicians to "combat illegal immigration" could later be used by radicals for mass deportations and tracking political opponents through facial recognition systems. Hinsliff characterized this proposal as "a 'hostile environment' policy in your pocket."

Ultimately, authorities were forced to abandon the idea of making the system mandatory. The situation in Britain is telling: even in developed economies, society is not ready to sacrifice privacy for the benefits of digitalization.

A Global Trend Towards Digital Identity

Governments around the world are synchronously promoting initiatives to replace physical documents with digital counterparts. For example, the U.S. is actively implementing mobile driver's licenses (mDLs) stored on smartphones.

The main argument from technology lobbyists is convenience and efficiency. Chris Skinner notes in The Finanser blog that governments position Digital ID as a tool to expedite bureaucratic procedures and update citizen data. The Indian Aadhaar system, which covers over a billion people, is often cited as an example.

Tech giants have joined the process. Apple has integrated support for government IDs into Apple Wallet. The corporation claims that the data is encrypted and inaccessible to the company itself. However, user skepticism is growing in proportion to the speed of innovation adoption.

Technical Vulnerabilities and the "Phone Home" Function

Cybersecurity experts point to hidden threats within the very standards of digital documents. Timothy Raff, a digital identity specialist, highlighted issues with the ISO 18013 standard underlying mDLs.

The regulation provides for a "server retrieval" mode for data. This creates the risk of implementing a "phone home" mechanism, allowing the issuer of the ID (the government) to track where, when, and by whom the document was presented.

Citizens consider politicians' promises not to use this function an inadequate guarantee of privacy protection.

The End of Anonymity Online

In the U.S. and Canada, the introduction of Digital ID is linked to bills on age verification and social media regulation. Specifically, the NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta case in California is mentioned. According to user opinions, the requirement to provide government identification to use online services effectively destroys anonymity on the internet.

There are concerns that Digital ID data will be integrated with AI systems for profiling citizens. This would allow corporations and authorities to track not only movements but also digital footprints, consumer habits, and social connections of users.

Social Exclusion and Coercion

Critics point to the discriminatory nature of the technology. The mandatory requirement for a smartphone to store the ID excludes socially vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly.

In discussions, the argument of "forced progress" is raised: lacking a gadget or refusing to accept the terms of use from Apple/Google could lead to a loss of civil rights — the inability to access banking services, medical care, or even buy groceries. The situation is described with a phrase from a British sketch show: "the computer says no."

Historical Memory and Distrust

Attitudes towards digital identification depend on the historical experiences and cultures of different countries. In Eastern Europe, for example, in Hungary, there is a strong memory of totalitarian control, leading to a sharp rejection of any forms of state registration. In Sweden, despite a high level of digitalization, citizens are skeptical about implanted NFC chips due to fears of surveillance.

The confrontation boils down to a choice between comfort and freedom. Governments seek total control over citizens, while society demands the right to privacy and protection from "digital authoritarianism." Currently, neither side is ready for compromise.

Privacy as a New Luxury

Social stratification is taking on a new form. The wealthy pay for the right to be "invisible" and interact with real people. The poor are condemned to live under constant surveillance by algorithms.

  • For the elite: meetings without phones, educating children in schools without screens, private clinics with live doctors, cash payments or through anonymous tools;
  • For the masses: AR glasses that record every glance, learning from AI tutors, biometric identification for access to basic goods.

Research from the Institute of Development Studies shows that digital IDs, promoted under the banner of inclusivity, actually deepen inequality. People without smartphones and internet access, or with low digital literacy, find themselves excluded from public life. If access to a bank account or benefits requires a face and a smartphone, poverty becomes synonymous with digital slavery.

A Counterculture of Physical Media

In response to total digitization, there is a growing demand for analog experiences — a conscious choice for physical interaction with the world. This is not nostalgia but a form of personal sovereignty protection:

  • Cash: using cash becomes an act of civil disobedience against systems that track every transaction. Financial privacy is seen as a fundamental part of freedom;
  • Physical media: vinyl records, cassettes, and paper books cannot be remotely edited or removed from a home library by a censor's decision or due to a license expiration.
  • "Dumb phones": the rise in sales of button phones without GPS and apps is a way to escape the grasp of data brokers.

The emerging class of "digital refusers" demonstrates that technology should remain a tool in human hands, not a system that defines social status. The right not to be digitized, recognized, and predicted by algorithms is becoming the main political demand of the decade.