> We didn't replace tech investors and leaders with worse people – we have the same kinds of people but we let them get away with more. I disagree entirely. I

> We didn't replace tech investors and leaders with worse people – we have the same kinds of people but we let them get away with more. I disagree entirely. I think the generational change in core philosophies is exactly the problem. I perceive three generations in the world of hackers. The first generation were Engineers. Their outlook was academic; they wrote RFCs and built consensus. Their outlook was intellectual; they were mainly interested in solving hard mathematical and algorithmic problems like figuring out how compilers and encryption and decentralized network addressing should work. Their audience was other academics interested in computers for academic purposes, and sometimes corporations and governments. Their work was Important. They did the Cold War. They did the Space Race. They worked for the man and they believed in it; they believed that was how we would build great treasures to leave to mankind. They were idealists. They built infrastructure. They built wonders. They put a man on the moon. The second generation were Revolutionaries. Computers became more accessible, and a thousand revolutions happened overnight. Some revolutionaries sought to break corporate power and give it to the people. Some saw a gold rush. Their outlook was explorational and competitive -- market dominance by outperforming, by seeking new horizons, by doing what had never been done before. Their outlook was revolutionary -- the cyberpunk ethos, the belief that information wants to be free, belong to this generation. They were mainly interested in changing the world. Their audience was hobbyists and the youth and the more technically inclined of the general public. They hated the man, and tried to bring him down. They tried to empower and enrich humanity. They built products and applications and tools. The third generation are Barons. As it became obvious to everyone that computers could make you rich and powerful, people started getting into them for that reason. Their outlook was machiavellian, as described in this article. They are mainly interested in power and money, in building kingdoms. Their outlook is contemptuous. Their audience are the technically illiterate masses, which they perceive as theirs to exploit. They are trying to get rich. They intend to be the man, and they largely succeed. (And now that they have succeeded so well, they're finding that ruling the world is not as easy or fun as they had imagined.) They build Technological Ecosystems. RMS stands at the cusp between the first and second generation, and was popular during the transition, and did a lot to give the second generation its voice. HN stands at the cusp between the second and third generation, and is very much a product of that time (and I mean that in the very best way -- it was a time when the corruption of the third generation was becoming obvious, and people hated it, and bless them they still thought they could outcompete it, because the excitement and idealism of the second generation hadn't died yet). The Engineers built email. The Revolutionaries built PGP. The Barons built GMail. The Engineers built IP. The Revolutionaries built TOR. The Barons built Twitter. The Engineers made usenet for themselves. The Revolutionaries made PHPBB. The Barons made Reddit and StackOverflow. The Engineers made Unix. The Revolutionaries made Linux. The Barons made smartphones. Nothing stops you from being an Engineer today. Or a Revolutionary. We still have some of them. But the dominant tools of this generation very much reflect the dominant philosophy of this generation, and complaining that it hurts you -- that it hurts everyone! -- will not do very much to fix it. Laws are helpful, but are fundamentally not the problem. A law here and there helps a bit, but what matters is that things are built by people who aim to exploit. They will find a way. And even if they don't succeed on you, that is the sort of thing they are building because that is the sort of thing they think they are supposed to be building. They didn't make Wikipedia because a law compelled them to. Or Linux. They made those things because they were Revolutionaries, and that sort of thing was what you did at that time. People make startups now, and go on Shark Tank or whatever, because that is what you do. You can't law people into building like a revolutionary; you need an army of sincere revolutionaries for that. Will the awfulness of this generation capture the imagination of the world and cause a backlash? I don't know. I'm squarely first-to-second generation myself, in philosophy and association if not by age, and I'm not holding my breath; just hoping the population of my little island is somewhat self-sustaining enough to make interesting things in its little niche.