Technology

Sadly, in this world you accomplish nothing for being nice and considerate. If you want to leave an impact (anything - a new invention, a new product, a new idea, anything with impact to contemporary culture) you have to bully yourself to the top, including stealing ideas and screwing people over, as well as to exploit people. All "great" people who accomplished something did that: Gates (Microsoft), Jobs (Apple), Musk (Tesla, Twitter), Bezos (Amazon), Thiel (PayPal, Palantir), Zuckerberg (Meta), Huffman (Reddit), as well as many politicans. It's a personality treat.

Here is a video that explains the issue, albeit it focuses on designers:

Because sociopathic tenancies are useful when on your way to the top. It lets you step on everyone else in your way and then do whatever you want without having to care about others.

Because you can’t climb to the top of the pile without treading on people and crushing others.

Perfect human beings don't exist. Apparently there's a religion positing there was one perfect human, but we nailed him to a cross for interfering with business.

Here's a thought. If you were able to get away with Almost Anything (TM) and were surrounded by people praising your genius, dashing good looks and boundless generosity towards their persons, how long would it take for you to lose your moral compass, you think? You would pretty soon lose your frame of reference to the normal people, and your empathy would follow. And that's assuming you're not 2nd or 3rd generation ultra rich, in which case you never had it to begin with.

Succession is a very good TV series exploring the mindset of such people, if you want to see it in action. Otherwise, history is full of examples - such as Nero, the greatest poet to ever set fire to Rome.

I know there are exceptions, like everywhere else in life. But those tend to cultivate humility as a habit, like other people go to the gym.

Leaders in tech have to be good at raising money from rich investors, lenders, etc.. Most of these people aren't tech people. They're hedge fund managers, bankers, or just people with lots of money. So consider the following 2 strategies:

Strategy A: Be realistic. Explain the positives and the negatives. The tech looks promising, but the future is uncertain. It's a risky investment that could pay off massively, but it probably won't. You the CEO know a lot about the topic, but you're still just a guy, not a miracle worker.

Strategy B: Just focus on the plus side. It will succeed, and it'll succeed way more than anyone expects. Not only that, you the CEO are an unstoppable hardworking galaxy brain genius who sleeps on the factory floor. They should be so lucky to get to invest in your company.

Which of these is more likely to work with investors who don't know tech? And which is most likely to be the strategy chosen by leaders who are narcissistic and deceitful? The answer is the same.

Shitty people like to become olympic power-grabbers.

And they can do a lot of damage so you hear about it. You've heard zero news stories about "ceo doesn't do heinously evil thing", because those don't become stories.

Because tech is capitalism, and it goes hand in hand with fascism

Bill Gates, founders of Google Larry Page, Sergey brin, Steve Jobs (wasn’t perfect but on a surface level, he was still at least a pretty decent guy), basically everyone involved in gaming from Xbox to PlayStation and so on, Tom from MySpace… So many admirable people who were actually really great…

They weren't that good, just charming.

And, well, they also at least knew where their power came from. Maybe Jobs was not some genius inventor normies consider him to be (those who remember him), maybe Bill was born to a rich family, but they still knew deeply enough what they were doing and they really had visions of future (they wanted, of course, to get all the dough from those being reached, but that's a normal capitalist wish) towards which they were walking step by step for decades. They can be compared to WWI ace pilots in some sense (not about risking their lives).

Still they were doing things similar to what corps do now. Just a bit more subtly, because it required some subtlety back then.

Then their corporations overgrew them, and outlived some of them.

Elon musk, we all know about him, don’t need to really say much. Every time you think he’s doing something good for society, he proves you wrong And does the worst thing he can possibly do in that situation. It’s like he’s specifically trying to make the world the worst place possible everyday

I have a suspicion he just secretly wants to help those big corps suicide themselves to free space for something new and good.

Like, damn. What the heck happened to the world? You know? I thought the tech industry was supposed to be filled with these brilliant genius people who are really good for the world…

Everything ages and rots. The secret to still having the world nice and fresh and optimistic is waste disposal. And also removing weeds from your garden. Like those corps and politicians.

If you want to push material that completely contradicts morals (respect for privacy and free speech, for example), maybe you need this kind of people. They'll just say they don't give a f*** right to your face. Not that Bill Gates or Larry Page are any different, the times just changed. Do you really believe Bill Gates is that intelligent God among men? Because I don't.

It's where the money is. Simple.

OK. Listen. These people are damn smart at what they do. Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos.

I have to deal with people every day that cannot do anything other than watch Fox News, News Max, and News Nation.

The above named people are taking advantage of people like that.

That's all i have to say.

Copying and pasting something I said elsewhere just the other day, because it fits:

However, I do think it’s also cultural in the tech companies. The modern tech culture was borne from an attitude that was 100% rooted in “well the law says we can’t do this, so we’ll do this instead, which is different on a technical and legal level, but achieves the same end-result.”

This was heavily evident in early piracy, which went from centralized servers of Napster and Kazaa to the decentralized nature of Bittorrent entirely in response to civil suits for piracy. It was an arms race. Soon enough the copyright holders responded by hiring third parties to hide in torrent swarms to be able to log IPs and hit people “associated” with those IPs with suits for sharing trivial amounts of copyrighted data with the third party. That was responded to with private trackers, and eventually, streaming.

Each step was a technical response to an attempt by society to legally regulate them. Just find a new technical way that’s not regulated yet!

The modern tech companies never lost that ethos of giving technical responses to route around new legal regulation. Which, in itself, is further enabled by capitalism, as you astutely pointed out.

This isn't meant to be an indictment against regular ass people and internet piracy, but it's more about pointing out the leaders in the tech industry at large have always had a similar mindset to the pirates. That their response to attempted regulation of their industry has always been to ignore the spirit of the regulation and attempt to achieve the same result through technically wonkery as opposed to legal wonkery.

I mean, you don't have to look farther than Sean Parker from Napster. Guy still has oodles of money and connections from running what amounted to an illegal business model at the time. He's still heavily involved in lots of major tech groups with oodles of money.

You're just not dealing with rational or good faith actors if their response to any attempt to reign them in is to avoid the attempt to be reigned in by changing how the tech works.

Resources and influence will always drunkard's-walk into the hands of the unscrupulous and manipulative, pretty much by definition.

They're going to be drawn to it, they'll fight dirtier for it, and they'll use the power it gives them to prevent anyone else from taking it away.

Big Tech is a huge source of both, so it would be amazing if the people on top of the heap weren't massive piles of shit.

Oh summer child

A CEO can be good. But a CEO with public shareholders has no choice.

I'm not saying that most CEOs aren't bastards but it's not necessary to be in the position or compete. But when you have public shareholders they are going to demand that you take every dollar through whatever means possible.

Because money

One word - capitalism. It favours master-slave model

That's a fair question.

I think there's many different - and valid - answers to this, depending on how you look at the question.

I guess you could say that society had a stronger immune system back then to eliminate these bad cells. These days, they run way too freely. It's bad, and i'm not sure whether we need a structural reform or whether we can wriggle through this one.

you either die a hero or live long enough to see your self become a villain