4 ms·

Corporations are never truly your friends and should be treated accordingly. For some reason, we once believed that tech companies were different, but in realit

Corporations are never truly your friends and should be treated accordingly. For some reason, we once believed that tech companies were different, but in reality, it was always just a more sophisticated facade. It’s good to see that facade being torn down—this should be obvious to everyone. You wouldn’t expect good behavior from BP Oil, so why expect it from Meta or any other tech giant? They all operate under the same logic: profit first, everything else is just a convenient disguise. Hope Streisand effects work fully for her!

Gud 2y ago
Tech companies were different and still are. The problem is that for some reason, advertising companies such as Meta and Google are considered tech companies by some. You wouldn’t call red bull an extreme sports company, just because they fund extreme sport events? I bet Rocket Lab is a great company to work at for a nerd.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  I don’t think that tech companies are inherently different by virtue of being tech companies. There are good ones and bad ones just like in other industries. There’s nothing special about “tech” that makes it a better place to work.
- xdavidliu 2y ago
  > Tech companies were different and still are. what would be an example of a tech company (for a fair comparison, a large one would be nice), and how is it different in the sense of not exhibiting the behaviors of this book?
  - Gud 2y ago
    An example would be a company with a primary stream is technology, not selling advertisements or data from social media users. Siemens, Nvidia, AMD, etc.
    - xdavidliu 2y ago
      > Corporations are never truly your friends and should be treated accordingly. For some reason, we once believed that tech companies were different, but in reality, it was always just a more sophisticated facade. Are those companies you listed counterexamples to this?
      - Gud 2y ago
        Actually I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. But I also believe that some companies will be more predatory in their actions depending on what’s their source of revenue, size of company, leadership etc. I would say Google in 2000 is very different from Google 2025. Back then Google seemed to me like an ally, maybe not a friend, but definitely we were on the same side. As soon as they became an ad company instead of a search engine, it slowly went down hill. Now I treat Google as part of the global elites surveillance machine instead of a trusted ally. The problem is, how do you make profit online without slipping into predatory action? How do you build an organisation resistant to this?
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > Tech companies were different and still are. It sure doesn't look like it to me.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Different from advertising companies. There is a pretty clear difference in attitude and behavior when you are the customer vs the product. Your run of the mill B2C will be more responsive to customer desires than a company with differentiated users and customers. By way of example, the company like Netflix might has viewers as a customer. The company like Facebook has users, but the advertisers are customers.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      Well, in a sense, yes. The threat model isn't quite identical between the two sorts of companies. However, SV-style companies who are are not ad-dependent still tend to be highly problematic in their behavior. In my view, it's more a difference in style than anything.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        There are tons of different kinds of tech companies, and I think they make more sense if you align them on the spectrum I proposed. I assume we are talking about product design behaviors and enshitiffication. Advertising isn't the only competing interests with users. Sometimes it's another product line or business interest. I think Windows OS would fall into this group. I think The OS intentionally designed to enfeeble users and push them into MS product lines. What do you think defines a SV type company?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

Gud 2y ago

Tech companies were different and still are. The problem is that for some reason, advertising companies such as Meta and Google are considered tech companies by some. You wouldn’t call red bull an extreme sports company, just because they fund extreme sport events? I bet Rocket Lab is a great company to work at for a nerd.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
I don’t think that tech companies are inherently different by virtue of being tech companies. There are good ones and bad ones just like in other industries. There’s nothing special about “tech” that makes it a better place to work.
xdavidliu 2y ago
> Tech companies were different and still are. what would be an example of a tech company (for a fair comparison, a large one would be nice), and how is it different in the sense of not exhibiting the behaviors of this book?
- Gud 2y ago
  An example would be a company with a primary stream is technology, not selling advertisements or data from social media users. Siemens, Nvidia, AMD, etc.
  - xdavidliu 2y ago
    > Corporations are never truly your friends and should be treated accordingly. For some reason, we once believed that tech companies were different, but in reality, it was always just a more sophisticated facade. Are those companies you listed counterexamples to this?
    - Gud 2y ago
      Actually I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. But I also believe that some companies will be more predatory in their actions depending on what’s their source of revenue, size of company, leadership etc. I would say Google in 2000 is very different from Google 2025. Back then Google seemed to me like an ally, maybe not a friend, but definitely we were on the same side. As soon as they became an ad company instead of a search engine, it slowly went down hill. Now I treat Google as part of the global elites surveillance machine instead of a trusted ally. The problem is, how do you make profit online without slipping into predatory action? How do you build an organisation resistant to this?
JohnFen 2y ago
> Tech companies were different and still are. It sure doesn't look like it to me.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Different from advertising companies. There is a pretty clear difference in attitude and behavior when you are the customer vs the product. Your run of the mill B2C will be more responsive to customer desires than a company with differentiated users and customers. By way of example, the company like Netflix might has viewers as a customer. The company like Facebook has users, but the advertisers are customers.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Well, in a sense, yes. The threat model isn't quite identical between the two sorts of companies. However, SV-style companies who are are not ad-dependent still tend to be highly problematic in their behavior. In my view, it's more a difference in style than anything.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      There are tons of different kinds of tech companies, and I think they make more sense if you align them on the spectrum I proposed. I assume we are talking about product design behaviors and enshitiffication. Advertising isn't the only competing interests with users. Sometimes it's another product line or business interest. I think Windows OS would fall into this group. I think The OS intentionally designed to enfeeble users and push them into MS product lines. What do you think defines a SV type company?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]