4 ms·

Dismantle what SV has evolved into under venture capital. When tech was scrappy and didnt have billions at stake, its products seemed to benefit humanity. Now

Dismantle what SV has evolved into under venture capital. When tech was scrappy and didnt have billions at stake, its products seemed to benefit humanity. Now it is (the most powerful?) part of the oppresive regime.

startupsfail 2y ago
[flagged]
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    It seems like a bad move though, I mean these are nerdy investor guys, right? They do well in this meritocratic system. If I was a tech billionaire I’d be very worried that a guy who’s only skills were catering and gangster stuff would have had a lot more time to study the latter, than me.
    - lovich 2y ago
      These tech moguls assume they will be in charge in the event of any sort of revolution or apocalypse. Look at some of what the Reddit founders have said for an example https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-...
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I don’t have a subscription, but does their plan involve preposterously loyal soldiers who have no motivation to follow their instructions for any reason other than suddenly valueless money?
        lovich 2y ago
        Yes. It’s not unique to the wealthy in tech, most nouveau riche seem to forget at some point that the only reason most people attend to their needs or are in their orbit is to get money and if that becomes useless or turns off they will be dropped like a bad habit
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    > he earnestly believes in what Putin does According to what? I've never heard him say anything positive about Putin. He also reportedly tipped off the FBI when the Kremlin invited him to meet with Putin.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. Both quotes by Peter Thiel in a Cato Unbound[1] blog post, 2009. The second quote is - let's call it "interesting" - considering Thiel is the patron of a VP candidate who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency. 1. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
      - drawkward 2y ago
        I presume that "franchise" here is meant as voting enfranchisement, i.e., women having the right to vote?
        sangnoir 2y ago
        Your presumption is correct - the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, amd its passing allowed women to vote in the US
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves, thereby continually maintaining or increasing the size of the government. His implication is that as the government grows bigger, as it does with continually increasing beneficiaries, who vote in order to increase their benefit as the system allows, the freedom of those who are not advantaged by a growing and naturally increasingly regulatory government will decrease, due to a higher tax and regulatory burden.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    >who literally own a 60k strong army Prigozhin had never own an army. He was just high-ranking Putin's clerk. He "owned" a 60k army in a meaning, in which any general owns an army. >Russian style oligarchical hellscape Russia has nothing to do with oligarchs. There's none left. Because oligarchy is about political power via the money, political will of capitals. And capitals have about zero political power in Russia. >he is rich and powerful either way. In Russia it works the other way around: you are powerful - and because of that you have money, and Zuck is NOT powerful. Literally one government decree - and he owns nothing and decides nothing, and considers himself lucky enough if after that decree he is allowed to get tenth of the marketprice for meta, or maintain his position as formal owner of de facto government controlled meta
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      He "owned" a 60k army in a meaning, in which any general owns an army. Except going by the estimates of casualties inflicted on government forces -- to a non-trivial extent they were loyal primarily to him, not Putin: 13–29 killed 1–6 helicopter(s) shot down 1 Il-22M airborne command-center plane shot down
      - Ray20 2y ago
        I suppose it's called in english "chain of command" - it is not about loyalty, it is about execution of orders. Literally any army in the world are built on this principle. More then this, that "mutiny" was not about overthrowing of the government. It was сonflict between different branches of the army, and Prigozhin tried to put pressure on Putin to resolve it. The closest thing to a private army that you can find in Russia - is Kadyrov's ~2k core forces. Everything else - is de facto government forces.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Do you think the Russian soldiers who shot down their own government's helicopters + command center did so on their own initiative -- or were they following Prigozhin's "chain of command"?
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    he earnestly believes in what Putin does. I don't believe this, as there are way too many glaring contraindications: his quick cooperation with the FBI, the fact that Palantir does significant business with Ukraine, lack of any statements in favor of Putin (or in support of his narratives), etc. Remember also he's gay, and so fundamentally at loggerheads with Putin on the whole "traditional values" issue. A better reading would be: since he's cast his lot squarely with Trump, ipso facto he'd be fine (enough) with whatever dirty deals Trump might wish to make with Putin (as Trump has essentially promised he would try to make). That doesn't mean he has to love these deals; but if it's the cost of maintaining his access with the Trump-Vance administration, then fine. Civil rights of the LGBT community in Russia, and civil/property/existence rights of Ukrainians be damned.
- adamrezich 2y ago
  > Most likely Crypto influencers are Putin-proxies, as usual. What proof do you have for this assertion? I find cryptocurrency influencers to be incredibly distasteful and lame, but I am unaware of any evidence that supports this theory.
  - startupsfail 2y ago
    So far, there was a trend, if you dig and look where far right money was coming from (Truth Social, Brexit, etc) it was invariably coming from proxies of Putin or useful idiots. If you notice, Trump had started collecting large amounts of money from Crypto. At approximately the same time when normal channels to transfer money from Putin’s proxies dried up. This channel, on the other hand, is still wide open. A known vulnerability, easy to exploit.
    - adamrezich 2y ago
      Yes I'm sure when one boils current world events down to about two variables on a single axis this is probably what one's worldview would look like.
ericfr11 2y ago
At least the media and public are aware. The oil industry: not so much: they are destroying the whole planet, and their lobbying is so much more secret and politically motivated
- drawkward 2y ago
  One has to wonder if we are truly aware. How much is AI ruining the environment via its constant demands for electricity and water? I'd expect more harms will come to light way down the line, as was true with big oil, tobacco, etc.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    not so far down the line. Deepfakes have obvious harms and Sora/similar is obviously going to get abused (as well as used).
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      I question the very framework of judging harms at the tool instead of at the user in the first place. Under that twisted logic of attributing the morality of all users to the creator so much as sharpening an axe is a moral wrong.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        that's a form of utilitarianism consequentialist ethics, which is fine, but is at odds with a deontological view of the world.
- wslh 2y ago
  The media is also part of the corrupt system though. They also have an agenda, use clickbait, and focus on the topics that maximize conversions.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Not sure the public is aware. And media is complicit since they are happy to use dark patterns to drive readership.
lacy_tinpot 2y ago
If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades. Most were libertarian and continue to be libertarian. The minor shift is from being left libertarian to more right libertarian, though that's mostly due to the political landscape where there isn't much room for contrarian leftists.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades. What has changed is that the proportion of people who wind up in tech primarily due to passion has drastically dropped as it became more prestigious. I'll paraphrase something I read elsewhere that rang true to me. In the 80s and 90s, amoral,greed-is-good, get-rich-by-any-means people got into banking and finance because it paid well. Now they go into tech.
  - lacy_tinpot 2y ago
    That still wouldn't change the political leanings much, which is my main point. However the kind of moralization, where the industry has suddenly become amoral greedy monsters is imo wrong. Tech has alway been ruthless. It's always been a cutthroat business. We even valorize that kind of character as the founder. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the political opportunity. SV can now influence and leverage real political power. That political opportunity is why so many are switching away from being Left leaning Libertarians (with even re-distributive ideas like UBI), to more Right leaning libertarians. And this is all because the incumbents on the Left aren't willing to make room for the new players in Tech. So path of least resistance is to move Right. This realignment has happening for a decade plus now.

startupsfail 2y ago

[flagged]

mrguyorama 2y ago
[flagged]
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It seems like a bad move though, I mean these are nerdy investor guys, right? They do well in this meritocratic system. If I was a tech billionaire I’d be very worried that a guy who’s only skills were catering and gangster stuff would have had a lot more time to study the latter, than me.
  - lovich 2y ago
    These tech moguls assume they will be in charge in the event of any sort of revolution or apocalypse. Look at some of what the Reddit founders have said for an example https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-...
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I don’t have a subscription, but does their plan involve preposterously loyal soldiers who have no motivation to follow their instructions for any reason other than suddenly valueless money?
      - lovich 2y ago
        Yes. It’s not unique to the wealthy in tech, most nouveau riche seem to forget at some point that the only reason most people attend to their needs or are in their orbit is to get money and if that becomes useless or turns off they will be dropped like a bad habit
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  > he earnestly believes in what Putin does According to what? I've never heard him say anything positive about Putin. He also reportedly tipped off the FBI when the Kremlin invited him to meet with Putin.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. Both quotes by Peter Thiel in a Cato Unbound[1] blog post, 2009. The second quote is - let's call it "interesting" - considering Thiel is the patron of a VP candidate who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency. 1. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
    - drawkward 2y ago
      I presume that "franchise" here is meant as voting enfranchisement, i.e., women having the right to vote?
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        Your presumption is correct - the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, amd its passing allowed women to vote in the US
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves, thereby continually maintaining or increasing the size of the government. His implication is that as the government grows bigger, as it does with continually increasing beneficiaries, who vote in order to increase their benefit as the system allows, the freedom of those who are not advantaged by a growing and naturally increasingly regulatory government will decrease, due to a higher tax and regulatory burden.
- Ray20 2y ago
  >who literally own a 60k strong army Prigozhin had never own an army. He was just high-ranking Putin's clerk. He "owned" a 60k army in a meaning, in which any general owns an army. >Russian style oligarchical hellscape Russia has nothing to do with oligarchs. There's none left. Because oligarchy is about political power via the money, political will of capitals. And capitals have about zero political power in Russia. >he is rich and powerful either way. In Russia it works the other way around: you are powerful - and because of that you have money, and Zuck is NOT powerful. Literally one government decree - and he owns nothing and decides nothing, and considers himself lucky enough if after that decree he is allowed to get tenth of the marketprice for meta, or maintain his position as formal owner of de facto government controlled meta
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    He "owned" a 60k army in a meaning, in which any general owns an army. Except going by the estimates of casualties inflicted on government forces -- to a non-trivial extent they were loyal primarily to him, not Putin: 13–29 killed 1–6 helicopter(s) shot down 1 Il-22M airborne command-center plane shot down
    - Ray20 2y ago
      I suppose it's called in english "chain of command" - it is not about loyalty, it is about execution of orders. Literally any army in the world are built on this principle. More then this, that "mutiny" was not about overthrowing of the government. It was сonflict between different branches of the army, and Prigozhin tried to put pressure on Putin to resolve it. The closest thing to a private army that you can find in Russia - is Kadyrov's ~2k core forces. Everything else - is de facto government forces.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Do you think the Russian soldiers who shot down their own government's helicopters + command center did so on their own initiative -- or were they following Prigozhin's "chain of command"?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  he earnestly believes in what Putin does. I don't believe this, as there are way too many glaring contraindications: his quick cooperation with the FBI, the fact that Palantir does significant business with Ukraine, lack of any statements in favor of Putin (or in support of his narratives), etc. Remember also he's gay, and so fundamentally at loggerheads with Putin on the whole "traditional values" issue. A better reading would be: since he's cast his lot squarely with Trump, ipso facto he'd be fine (enough) with whatever dirty deals Trump might wish to make with Putin (as Trump has essentially promised he would try to make). That doesn't mean he has to love these deals; but if it's the cost of maintaining his access with the Trump-Vance administration, then fine. Civil rights of the LGBT community in Russia, and civil/property/existence rights of Ukrainians be damned.
adamrezich 2y ago
> Most likely Crypto influencers are Putin-proxies, as usual. What proof do you have for this assertion? I find cryptocurrency influencers to be incredibly distasteful and lame, but I am unaware of any evidence that supports this theory.
- startupsfail 2y ago
  So far, there was a trend, if you dig and look where far right money was coming from (Truth Social, Brexit, etc) it was invariably coming from proxies of Putin or useful idiots. If you notice, Trump had started collecting large amounts of money from Crypto. At approximately the same time when normal channels to transfer money from Putin’s proxies dried up. This channel, on the other hand, is still wide open. A known vulnerability, easy to exploit.
  - adamrezich 2y ago
    Yes I'm sure when one boils current world events down to about two variables on a single axis this is probably what one's worldview would look like.

ericfr11 2y ago

At least the media and public are aware. The oil industry: not so much: they are destroying the whole planet, and their lobbying is so much more secret and politically motivated

drawkward 2y ago
One has to wonder if we are truly aware. How much is AI ruining the environment via its constant demands for electricity and water? I'd expect more harms will come to light way down the line, as was true with big oil, tobacco, etc.
- fragmede 2y ago
  not so far down the line. Deepfakes have obvious harms and Sora/similar is obviously going to get abused (as well as used).
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    I question the very framework of judging harms at the tool instead of at the user in the first place. Under that twisted logic of attributing the morality of all users to the creator so much as sharpening an axe is a moral wrong.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      that's a form of utilitarianism consequentialist ethics, which is fine, but is at odds with a deontological view of the world.
wslh 2y ago
The media is also part of the corrupt system though. They also have an agenda, use clickbait, and focus on the topics that maximize conversions.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Not sure the public is aware. And media is complicit since they are happy to use dark patterns to drive readership.

lacy_tinpot 2y ago

If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades. Most were libertarian and continue to be libertarian. The minor shift is from being left libertarian to more right libertarian, though that's mostly due to the political landscape where there isn't much room for contrarian leftists.

sangnoir 2y ago
> If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades. What has changed is that the proportion of people who wind up in tech primarily due to passion has drastically dropped as it became more prestigious. I'll paraphrase something I read elsewhere that rang true to me. In the 80s and 90s, amoral,greed-is-good, get-rich-by-any-means people got into banking and finance because it paid well. Now they go into tech.
- lacy_tinpot 2y ago
  That still wouldn't change the political leanings much, which is my main point. However the kind of moralization, where the industry has suddenly become amoral greedy monsters is imo wrong. Tech has alway been ruthless. It's always been a cutthroat business. We even valorize that kind of character as the founder. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the political opportunity. SV can now influence and leverage real political power. That political opportunity is why so many are switching away from being Left leaning Libertarians (with even re-distributive ideas like UBI), to more Right leaning libertarians. And this is all because the incumbents on the Left aren't willing to make room for the new players in Tech. So path of least resistance is to move Right. This realignment has happening for a decade plus now.