In retrospect it was extremely arrogant of us 90's nerds to think that the bullies and autocrats and sleazebags of the world were too stupid to figure out how to use the Internet to their own ends, and overwhelm the incumbent minority. Once you could use a sleek, trendy iPhone instead of a clunky desktop computer to get online, the writing was on the wall.
Nerds needed support in the nineties, and they need support today. Our error was in accepting the success and fame of a few representative nerds as evidence that nerds were overcoming these challenges collectively. We allowed in people who never faced the challenges nerds face to identify as nerds— why turn down a friend?— and they've now made society worse for everyone, in our name. In a single blow they've amplified anti-intellectualism and squandered the faith people thought they were investing in us.
I don't think that struggle is really the defining feature here. If anything, many of the most toxic people I can think of in geeky circles are precisely the people who still have a chip on their shoulder about something that happened in middle school.
I think it's simpler than that: we sold out.
Tech in the 80s and 90s was the land of curious geeks who played with it because it was interesting, or because they had a goal they wanted to enable. But once tech became a powerhouse of investment, it became taken over by investors, financiers, and the kind of geeks who would play ball with them.
Some of them drank the kool-aid and became financiers themselves, corrupted by the same forces that corrupt bankers or politicians. Some of them sold out because hey, ping-pong table in the office, that's pretty cool! evil never has ping-pong tables! Some of them sold out because times are hard and they wanted a job. And some of them don't realize they have sold out, because tech culture does a very good job of propagandizing selling out as a virtue.
> Tech in the 80s and 90s was the land of curious geeks who played with it because it was interesting, or because they had a goal they wanted to enable
For me it was tech in the 90’s and 00’s so I think the real explanation is even simpler: we grew up.
It’s very easy to be pure of intention and intellectual curiosity when mom fills the fridge.
A lot of the people I recall interacting with on Usenet in the mid 1990s were very much grown up, graduated, far away from “mom”, and employed as developers or uni staff somewhere. However, they still enjoyed hacking, either out of pure fun or FOSS idealism, and without monetary reward very much in mind. I think that the OP is on to something when he says that the economic environment changed, and this led to nerd things being seen through a much more mercenary lens.
Even the major “news for nerds” site in the early years of the new millennium, Slashdot, where there was awareness that FOSS was now fueling major economic growth, did not yet have the same overwhelming culture of startups, venture capital, megacorps, and hustling as the venue we’re conversing on now.
> awareness that FOSS was now fueling major economic growth, did not yet have the same overwhelming culture of startups, venture capital, megacorps, and hustling as the venue we’re conversing on now.
I don't think it was a change. Both things existed in parallel, with a little bit of crossover. The startup/VC/megacorp thing just won out, that's all. And nobody ever really doubted that it would, once it was visible.
My take while reading OP was that the author simply grew up. When young and idealistic it's easy to believe the utopian marketing. In reality, business is the same as it's always been.
I do think politics has gotten worse in the "post-truth era". And tech certainly enabled that. It's hard to blame anyone in particular, though. One thing we see in the show "Connections" is that it's always hard to predict the consequences of new technology. Even seeing it coming, it's not fair to believe tech workers should have saved us from the rightward swing.
I feel like "business is the same as it's always been [so things aren't getting worse]" is kind of like saying "I'm smoking exactly as much as I have for the past 20 years, how can I only just have cancer now?" It's not that the problem is new, it's that the disease is degenerative.
>Tech in the 80s and 90s was the land of curious geeks who played with it because it was interesting, or because they had a goal they wanted to enable. But once tech became a powerhouse of investment, it became taken over by investors, financiers, and the kind of geeks who would play ball with them.
I don't think that was the case. Go and read the stories of the founders of companies like Apple, Atari, Adobe and others from that era and you will find they all took investments to get started.
The old Internet was definitely my support network, I met a lot of people I could relate to back then, totally different from "IRL people". The Internet is the opposite of that for me now. Where did all the weirdo super-introvert nerds go? Do they all feel as lonely as I do?
1. Fear and embarrassment. Back then the expectation was that online you were anonymous, today you constantly hear about doxxing. People were also less aware of the consequences.Even if it's unlikely for some random person, that doesn't help introverts.
2. Outnumbered. Back then the internet was mostly weird people, so most posts including the popular ones were weird. Today, "new" and "random" are filled with spam, and "popular" is filled with posts upvoted by "normies". Weird posts and posters are still here, but they're obscured by the noise.
3. Feedback. People imitate what they see, and feel more comfortable following trends. When "normal" people see weird posts, they become weird and make weird posts. When weird people see weird posts, they feel safer and make weird posts. When normal people see non-weird posts, they make non-weird posts. When weird people don't see weird posts, they feel embarrassed making weird posts, so post non-weird or not at all.
I think 3 is the biggest factor, caused by 2. As other people mentioned, "weird" people are still on servers that are private or otherwise hidden from the mainstream (preventing 2 and 3). 1 is probably not a big factor, instead it explains why less people show their face or post identifying details.
My dad had a simpler take: The early Internet was filtered essentially by wealth and intelligence. You had to have a (relatively) expensive setup, and you had to be the type to be "on the bleeding edge" of technology. That didn't necessarily mean you were a "nerd" or "weird". This group included researchers at government labs, university professors, military, etc... Anywhere where the Internet had early adoption was over-represented. I remember NASA and CERN as significant fractions of the entire Internet in the earliest days!
I remember debates on the talk.origins usenet newsgroup with very highly educated priests, some at the highest levels of the church. These people wouldn't give me the time of day now!
In some sense it's the same filter that a University admissions process applies, and companies like Google try to reproduce.
> Back then the expectation was that online you were anonymous [...] Back then the internet was mostly weird people, so most posts including the popular ones were weird.
What years are you referring to when you say "back then"? In the early 90s, which was "the old Internet" for me, the best contributors to discussions on the newsgroups I followed (comp.lang.c, etc.) weren't anonymous; they were well-educated people who used their real names, including academics whose signatures included URLs like http://example.edu/~jsmith. And their posts weren't weird, at least not on the newsgroups I followed.
The cohort immediately after you described - those geeks grew up along with growth of videogame market, IMs, and birth of multi-player gaming on the Internet. People who were still geeks, and learned from all those academics and realname adults, but who also had to come up with nicknames early on, and got used to pseudonymity this way.
"weird" isn't a good description. Specifically, most people on the internet back then were well-educated computer nerds, so the typical post would be more relatable to those on HN and arguably (according to those on HN) "higher quality".
These people aren't "weird" in a bad way, but in a "different than the average (less-educated, less tech-oriented) person" way.
The anonymity part probably isn't correct. But I get the impression people back then were a lot more open, at least hearing about dating sites, chat-roulette, old YouTube channels, and internet friends who met IRL in the 90s/2000s. Although I know a lot of people post on Facebook and Twitter, so maybe that hasn't changed either.
Niche forums and gaming communities? HN? They've grown up, some have become braiwashed by corporate culture, some have wives, kids, dogs, cats, mortgages.
As others mentioned, there are Discord and IRC pockets. I'm in a Fediverse community with a bunch of nerds, and many of us just met in person at this week's Handmade conference.
You can watch the entire conference here. I want to disclaim that not every attendee and talk is nerdy. It's more that this is a space where nerds are thriving.
> adults don't have time for following a Discord per every topic they're interested in.
Funny, I do just that, despite having a bunch of pets and a full-time job - I follow at least 30 game-specific discords. You must be thinking of people compulsively checking notifications like a social media addict?
I feel sorry for anyone who uses Discord like that. Thankfully, you don't have to since many communities now have mini-wikis inside of the Discord to organize the FAQ/common knowledge.
I run a small network, but this might come across as advertising. It’s been running for 20 years now.
People come and go, but its wild how the community spirit largely remains, even with significant changes in the lifestyle of the people that have been frequenting the network for a large segment of that time.
They've needed support since antiquity. I recall Tycho Brahe getting into an argument with his serfs after he was made a lord that eventually went to court. What's changed is that it no longer requires extravagant wealth to produce one.
I mean, when there's enough financial incentive, all the gatekeeping in the world won't stop the wave of people hoping to get rich. They'll pay off many of the nerds who were thought to be resistant to such means.
The fact is, it not the Internet that failed us, but education. Education quality in the US has declined a lot since the 60s. Now education is only used to create bio-robots, not people who can still think critically.
In the 70s, we saw many people really believing in astrology, flat-earth and doing all they can to be stupid. There was a time being smart was considered good and to be admired. Now, stupid people and bullies are society "heros".
When I was in school (public), classes were divided into "Smart", "Average" and "remedial". That disappeared in the 70s because parents did not want their kid put into remedial classes. So what happened ? Many smart kids were bored out of their mind in class and the "cool" kids acted stupid to get attention. So many kids started following that coolness trend and ended up dumb by not learning anything.
> There was a time being smart was considered good and to be admired. Now, stupid people and bullies are society "heros".
Is this true today? It's repeated pretty often, but I have my doubts. It almost seems like it's one of those things that gets repeated through the years ("back in the day, it was cool to be smart, but now we have Idiocracy IRL") over and over.
I might be wrong, but I'm guessing I'm on the younger side here (given your reference to the 70s), having graduated college a few years ago. From looking at my generation and interacting with our successors I get the impression that culture has (for a long time now) kinda shifted towards it being fine and good (if not cool per se) to be smart / a nerd / whatever. If anything it seems like, IDK, 70s and 80s? pop culture had the whole "the jocks vs. the nerds" thing, there were stereotypes of smart people having no friends, it was a social death sentence to have a geeky hobby, etc. That doesn't seem like it's the case anymore. Part of this is probably down to schools not really having centralized, stereotypical "popular kids" anymore, but if I had to pick out popular people from my high school, they were plenty smart. And it was never seen as uncool or weird (outside of jokes) to play video games, play DnD, do theater or robotics, or whatever.
The way people talk about this stuff you'd think the whole 80s movie stereotype of "he's reading a book, what a nerd!" and giving someone a swirly still exists in real life. I don't think I ever saw anything close to that, nor do I ever get that impression from people younger than me. Obviously, this is all super regional and dependent on socioeconomic groups and all that stuff, but I'm just sharing my perspective.
There is, of course, a distinction between being smart/nerdy/geeky/whatever and having crappy social skills. They overlap, obviously (and probably correlate), but they are distinct. The latter was never cool or admirable, and I wonder if people miss that and conflate the two.
statistically, yes. We've been falling in rankings for K-12 for decades now. Schools have been gettting less funding, especially teachers that are starting to leave for other careers like a starbucks barista due to pay.
The median is slowly falling, but the quartiles are where the extremes really highlight. On one side (which sounds like it might be you) you have colleges more competitive than ever that basically require your entire middle and high school career to revolve around minmaxing a resume before you are even an adult. On the other end you have high schoolers unable to spell that are being passed. So there's polarization on the ends where kids are smarter and dumber than ever at the same time.
Can't really speak about reputation. it all depends on your group and who you want to appeal to. There are "cool smart kids" and "uncool smart kids" for a variety of reasons. Because social skills are relative. Social skills are all about making others feel good in your presence and there's no one style that will universally do this.
> statistically, yes. We've been falling in rankings for K-12 for decades now. Schools have been gettting less funding, especially teachers that are starting to leave for other careers like a starbucks barista due to pay.
My bad, I'm not looking to contest that part, there are definitely serious issues with the school system. I just don't think very much if any of it boils down to "there was a time being smart was considered good and to be admired. Now, stupid people and bullies are heroes" as if the kids are intentionally being dumb because it's cool / peer pressure. It's easy to be dumb - especially when we have so many distractions available to us - but I wouldn't call it cool or pin it on some kind of peer pressure thing.
But yes I agree with you, the school system has its troubles (the stats obviously speak for themselves). Funding and teacher pay are probably the biggest factor, though I'd also include classroom distractions (phones, basically), a lack of ability to enforce order in the classroom, and probably parental support as well, off the top of my head.
well, "cool" is too subjective to really say much, especially when only thinking on a micro level. I think a better phrasing of that is that "dumbness" is being more mainstream today (in the US) than before. Some states are back to banning more books than ever in schools, the country was split over something as basic as medicine ( a few choosing horse de-wormer over a professionally approved vaccine), etc.
There was always such conspiracy, but never talked about at such a scale. But not too much of this has to do with techies outside of "tech made it easy for conspirators to gather".
The U.S. placed 16th out of 81 countries in science when testing was last administered in 2022.
The top five math-scoring countries in 2022 were all in Asia.
U.S. students' math scores have remained steady since 2003.
Their science scores have been about the same since 2006.
The IMD World Competitiveness Center reports that the U.S. ranked 12th in its 2024 Competitiveness Report after ranking first in 2018.
I'd say 16th (<20th percentile) is really bad when the US is 2nd in spending (behind Luxemburg, apparently) per student in the world. especially if science is the best statistic to show to begin with.
falling from 1st to 12th in 6 years in competitiveness is even more concerning. Maybe COVID really did ruin attention span.
A slightly different take on this was a school I attended in Mississippi --- classes were divided between academic and social --- academic classes (science, math, languages) were attended at one's ability level (w/ a four grade cap for students through 4th grade, so a 4th grader couldn't take higher than 8th grade classes), while social classes (homeroom, phys. ed., social studies) were taken at one's grade level.
Some faculty members were accredited as faculty at a local college, so students could take college classes once they finished high school classes --- it was not uncommon for students to graduate from high school and also be awarded a four-year college degree.
Apparently, the Mississippi State Supreme Court ruled it an illegal educational system since it conferred an advantage on those students who were able to take advantage of it, without a matching compensation for those students who weren't.
It will be interesting to see (as someone without skin in the game 'cause I live in Sweden but having seen a similar type of downward development towards 'equity' here) whether the incoming government will make good on its promise to abolish the department of education which was put in place by Carter in 1979. While the press is doing its best to portray this as a terrible idea which will create mayhem and lead to the quality of education to fall even further it is a fact that the quality of education has markedly deteriorated since its inception while its mission is supposed to be the opposite [1]. Most of the news I've seen regarding education in the USA has trended towards the negative: programs for gifted pupils are shut down because they lead to a decrease in 'equity' where some pupils gain advantages over others, the debacle around extended school closures during the SARS2 unpleasantness, the oversized influence of the (extremely politically biased) teachers' unions, the lack of school choice in many places combined with the influence of districting - where you live decided which school you attend - and more. To me it seems clear the department has failed in its mission and with that needs to be either closed down or overhauled. Given that it is a relatively young department and that educational outcomes were better before it was created - keeping in mind that this does not necessarily indicate a causal relation - it makes sense to abolish this department and relegate essential tasks back to where they were before it was created.
Sounds like a great argument for someone with a special interest to make private schools more appealing (not that I think you have that. Just people who can tell public schools not to be too good).
If you removed the reference to the 70s, This comment could have been stated at any time from 1750 to today and only by grammar would you be able to pick out when it was made.
"In retrospect it was extremely arrogant of us 90's nerds to think that the bullies and autocrats and sleazebags of the world were too stupid to figure out how to use the Internet to their own ends"
Or that nerds are not immune to become "bullies and autocrats and sleazebags" themself. I mean, why should love for technology, translate into consistent love for people?
Because so many nerds were treated badly and should know better, how to behave, once in power?
Sadly it is quite known, that people who suffered are likely to cause suffering as well, unless they really processed it all.
So it is a good thing, that therapy looses its stigma. Because people can change as well.
It is indeed a human flaw, and a futuristic society would be designed to take this into account instead of blindly relying on faith and acting surprised, repeatedly, when it fails.
Capitalism increasingly incentivizes (and normalizes) deception as it struggles to squeeze the remaining profits, since the rest have trended toward zero as Marx warned they would. From this stems "enshitification" and other perverse incentives like influencer culture, etc.
An ideal society of the future would allow all information to be freely available. All structures of organization would be transparent, and commonly agreed upon goals would take precedence above all else, instead of the goals dictated by the .01 or .001 percent.
"An ideal society of the future would allow all information to be freely available."
Total surveillance?
Or only all technical information?
But transparency of all the organisations, so all the police information as well?
So the murder suspects knows, where the police is looking for them? (Or won't there be a need for a police like organisations because murder is also somehow solved?)
My point is, devil is in the details. And Marx is not someone I would go for inspiration. Marxist organisations are not so known for their transparency btw.
Also, I really don't believe that the problem is a human flaw. I don't want to change humans. (It happens naturally anyway).
But I do believe, that we can create better societies, that serves us better, the way we are.
It is just hard, to create them from scratch for various reasons, but many people are trying and some quite succesful.
Crime would be a fraction of what it is now due to a massive shifting in incentives and societal landscape, and probably dealt with very differently when it does occur instead of turning it into its own for-profit industry (with some of the lowest paid labor among prisoners). Knee jerk reactionary notions of "justice" begin to look very primitive through a materialist lens.
> Marxist organisations are not so known for their transparency btw.
Marxism offers a timeless framework and does not require subscriptions or other grifts. That the latter exists does not invalidate the former. It's just example 100539 of what my previous reply was getting at.
> I don't want to change humans.
Humans deserve better opportunities than most presently have, and than most will seemingly have on our current trajectory into late stage capitalist madness. We should acknowledge/embrace our flaws to see commonality (which is different than being ashamed, proud of, or profiting off of them).
"Marxism offers a timeless framework and does not require subscriptions or other grifts."
Just like the bible, a holy work of truth, you just have to believe in?
"Crime would be a fraction of what it is now due to a massive shifting in incentives and societal landscape"
Because as far as I know, all the marxist experiments did not result in less crime, or corruption, rather the opposite. So why should I believe, that the next marxist experiments will work out any better?
Was there a major update recently, that fixed the flaws?
(To clarify, to me the choice is not at all between capitalism and marxism, humans are capable of a bit more flexibility)
> Just like the bible, a holy work of truth, you just have to believe in?
In ways which are commonly agreed upon as useful, yes. In the case of the bible it cannot be interpreted literally. But abstract concepts, like that every human contains the capacity for good and evil, absolutely. In fact that's what we're discussing.
> Because as far as I know, all the marxist experiments did not result in less crime, or corruption, rather the opposite. So why should I believe, that the next marxist experiments will work out any better? Was there a major update recently, that fixed the flaws?
Assuming you aren't drinking the sinophobia Kool Aide, which is an admittedly big assumption, have you looked at what China has been able to accomplish in recent decades? Not perfect obviously, nothing is, but they're in different league compared to the crumbling empire of the US.
"But abstract concepts, like that every human contains the capacity for good and evil, absolutely. In fact that's what we're discussing."
I see. Well, I strongly disagree to the arbitary dividing of the world in good and evil. In fact, the whole "capitalism is the root of all evil" reminds me strongly of what was the devils doing before. All the bad just happens, because there is this evil force.
In my opinion, this is good ideology for controlling people - we are the good side - they are evil ones. And don't you dare question our side - then you are evil.
Still a surprise, that you see china as a positive force here.
> Well, I strongly disagree to the arbitary dividing of the world in good and evil.
That's not what I said though. It's dividing chunks of time within an individual. There is no purely good or evil person. Humans contain the capacity for both, and how it manifests is mostly a function of their environment at any point in time combined with the historical context that got them to that point. Look up dialectical/historical materialism to understand how this comes to be.
> Still a surprise, that you see china as a positive force here.
I cited it not as a "pure good" like you're attempting to coerce from my words. Instead I cited it as an example of a group of people with a Marxist background doing some things better than capitalism (and some things worse).
Some of the most bullying behavior I have seen online is by nerds, sometimes nerds old enough to have come out of the 1990s internet. It’s not only that non-nerd bullies, too, got access to the internet, it is that modern society (both outside social factors, as well as internet-related developments like the rise of microblogging that doesn’t encourage nuance and rewards partisan performativity) can lead nerds to act harmfully.
In my opinion where this behavior really began to run rampant was with the popularization of quippy “dunk" quote-tweets (though this may have earlier precedent, perhaps on tumblr). It’s a deeply antisocial action that just about every internet connected demographic has come to partake in.
Also the nerds bully in the most lazy and untalented ways. They think they "own" somebody by writing lol or lmao with their takes.
Real bullies knew how to make it fun for everybody, so that even the person being bullied had to laugh at it. Nerd bullies are just anti-social and boring.
Well we made it “idiot proof” didn’t we, and all the idiots came. We need a sort of Dark Web with low crime, and mostly that’s things like HN and people running private Slack instances.
In a way it kind of exists, you have Gopher and Gemini. The main links I know of.
gopher://sdf.org
gemini://sdf.org and gemini://gem.sdf.org
I already moved my personal WEB Site there, and there is interesting content there. Maybe "we" should migrate there and leave the LOL cats to the WEB :)
I was thinking about a Twitter clone where your account goes through an approval process where you provide a short essay and your Hacker News username. Client has no tracking, and uses no JavaScript.
Personally I think the iPhone was the turning point for much of the dystopian era.
Technically, the iphone is very good and should have made things better.
But what it actually did was to set an example of control over the user that propagated throughout all of computing. People no longer had control over their own device.
People who bought an iPhone were unable to install their own software without permission from apple. And apple didn't give permission, destroying general computing.
Additionally, apple DID give permission to app creators and advertisers to do things on the phone. More than the person who owned the phone could, in fact against their interests. We've never recovered.
Pfff. Ironically, the ""walled garden"" on iOS protects users better than the anything-goes wild west on web browsers, where sites can run any code they want, change anything under your feet, and snoop on your other "apps" at will.
So the Lord God banished them from the Garden of Fidonet... Woe unto them, for they have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind. Their troubles shall multiply as bugs and glitches in their software.
> to think that the bullies and autocrats and sleazebags of the world were too stupid to figure out how to use the Internet to their own ends
This.
There has always been a distinct classism in human society: one class has always been able to do certain things to the other class, but not the other way around.
Right now the latest addition is mass surveillance and spying. Governments and corporations know everything about you but you can't really know anything about them except what they want you to know.
Only through bloody revolutions did the classes ever change places if at all, or at least get shaken up and mixed a little, but there's never going to be a revolution again, because the might of arms on one side is the most disproportionate it has ever been.
There was a subset of us “old” 90s nerds who failed to take certain elements among us who would be:
1. Enriched an empowered by having the right skillset at the right place and time to achieve fortunes (and by direct purchase) political power unrivaled since the Gilded Age and
2. Still traumatized by not being at the cool kids table in middle school, never emotionally progress past being 12 year old boys
We didn’t need the bullies and autocrats to discover technology. They were among us the whole time. We just didn’t take them seriously.
Well the other issue is that many of 90s nerds turned out to be just as fascistic and bullying and horribly un-empathic themselves -just look at Musk as an example.
I mean not having social skills, not identifying with women or not treating them as fellow human beings, not having empathy for non-tech users etc, being obsessed with technology, sometimes at the expense of their humanity. I'm not excusing myself btw here either.. but as I get older I see our own community can be as toxic as any other, what I mean is I'm not laying the blame on outsiders but our own-selves. Power and Money corrupts anyone.
Sure I loved pcs, and programming, got bullied as a youth and I wasn't into sports but that doesn't make me any more or less likely to want to 'Make the world a better place' with tech.
Honestly 'Silicon Valley' the tv show, took out much of the wind and visionary magic that the real Silicon Valley was viewed as over 10 years ago. And subsequent actions of the real valley have not proven it false but a resounding and biting commentary on the culture
These days we have Tech Bro culture, immense tech layoffs, offshoring of work, Doomscrolling and tech which splinters humanity instead of binding it, consigns people to contract menial work at the whim of an algorithm and uses AI to generate art and music while human artists get locked out proper reward for their efforts .. I can definitely see how many in the younger generations are looking at Big Tech as being just as evil as Big Oil
Yes, yes, we all know it - Elon Musk eats babies and Tesla batteries set Rome on fire.
Seriously, all this Musk talk stopped being funny years ago, when people started believing and regurgitating all that bullshit with a straight face.
"Tech Bro culture" is another Yeti - everyone is an expert on it, no one actually saw it. It's just a strawman from early culture wars that gives people another way to hate each other. It's perfect for cementing groups and gaining power in them, and for increasing advertisement exposure. It's really, really bad for one's sanity.
Techno utopia failed for a simple reason: people keep imagining what is possible with technology, but what actually materializes in the real world is what's possible under current economy. "Bicycles for the mind", tricorders, Mars colonies - they don't make money, so they don't happen. Instead, we get eshittification, and innovative blends of finance and medical insurance, and ad-funded social media.
For all his issues, Musk actually performed two miracles - revitalizing the space sector by making the business case for launches add up (a first piece of serious progress in space exploration since the Space Shuttle program), and dragging the market kicking and screaming into accepting BEVs as a serious, mass-market product. In both cases, the miracle part wasn't tech - it was making the economics work (including fighting the already established efficiencies).
> I can definitely see how many in the younger generations are looking at Big Tech as being just as evil as Big Oil
Because it is, and I wish more people understood it exactly for what it is. Key insight - it has nothing to do with tech, everything to do with business. The technology itself isn't a problem - the problem is that we allow (and encourage) entrepreneurs to engage in the same immoral business practices, the same abusive business models, that previously defined Big Oil, and later on several other Big industries.
My catchphrase for a while has been "business ruins everything it touches." And before someone swoops in to try and convince me otherwise, save your breath. I'm not interested in hearing the positives of business, I will ignore outright anything pointing to "you wouldn't have THIS without business!"-type replies, and I don't want to reduce this thought further.
From my perspective, business ruins everything it touches, whether right away or slowly over time through enshittification.
I get your point, though to me, there's way too many babies per cubic meter of that bathwater of yours.
My own general explanation of why everything sucks is more like this: we don't know how to stop. The market can't stop itself from over-optimizing, over-exploiting.
The evolution of any product, service, company or technology, can be to a first approximation plotted as a bell curve:
total value provided to society
^
| ....
| .. ..
| ... ...
| .... ....
| ..... .....
------------------------------------> time
(Total value includes not just direct benefit to customers/users, but also how it enables others to build new products/science/businesses/etc. on it.)
The market always goes all the way to the right. What it should do, what we need it to do, is to stop at the peak of the bell curve. Alas, there is no mechanism that would get people to say, "yeah, this is the best it could be, let's go do something else"; the market demands they move to the right, all the way to diminishing returns.
On a spectrum he is definitely in that direction. There are many examples but a few:
a) Publicly shamed a civil servant with full knowledge it would drive the violent elements of his supporters to attack her. I've never seen this before in US politics where an innocent party was targeted this way and clearly it was done to drive fear within the government.
b) Has constantly promoted false stories about immigrants, black people, trans people, women etc. The narrative being that the US is a zero sum game where in order for non-white males to succeed white-males must lose.
c) I run Twitter business accounts which are post-only and every single one shifted hard towards showing ultra-right wing political content in the For You feed. There is no doubt that the platform was used as a propaganda tool during the last election.
>a) Publicly shamed a civil servant with full knowledge it would drive the violent elements of his supporters to attack her. I've never seen this before in US politics where an innocent party was targeted this way and clearly it was done to drive fear within the government.
Hmm, you must have missed when the Department of Justice sent protestors to Florida to pressure a local district attorney into pressing charges against a very clearly innocent man. And if you disagree with the very clearly innocent part then you definitely didn't watch the trial and missed the eyewitness reports and the medical reports.
Just that they provided support to those protests which is part of their remit i.e. to reduce conflict by encouraging dialog, mediation as opposed to protesting etc: https://www.justice.gov/crs
Just wait and see what he'll do to the federal workers, before he gets to screw up Mars for good. Maybe replace them with AI, since that's the current hype train. Think of full self driving but for government.
I think the word for what is about to happen is not yet invented. It will be something else, something with dire consequences but of a different kind. Something that leaves everyone but a thin elite completely behind. Some may say it has been like this a long time, but I think it will evolve/level up to something we have never seen before.
Some call what they fear to come is fascism, but I think it will be inaccurate. Oligarchism maybe. Or something new.
Firing Federal workers so that ultra-rich people can do whatever they want without any oversight, while at the same time undermining the rule of law, and creating a scapegoat ("illegal immigrants") at the same time - that's literally fascism.
In 1944, before the actual universally agreed upon to be fascist powers were defeated in WW2, George Orwell wrote about how the word had been applied to just about every group imaginable and had already lost any real meaning it might have had:
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."
"Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."
What makes it the "best" in your opinion? Looking at the list, several of the points could be applied to just about every modern nation-state, several easily apply to communist states just as easily as fascist states, and there are several that don't apply to many states that most people would argue are fascist. For example, Salazar's Portugal is widely regarded as fascist but points 9, 10, 11, and 13 (and maybe more) don't really apply to it.
It strikes me more as someone trying to give fascism a formal definition as a way to use it as an ideological cudgel in arguments than any attempt to define it based pn observation of multiple actual fascist states and political movements.
Hmmmm, I can't quite put my finger on what it is but I suspect there are some fundamental differences between firing a bunch of bureaucrats from the federal government vs. Hitler's purge of the SA or Stalin's purge of the Soviet officer corps.
Except he can't be banned from TwitterX like Trump. Imagine Musk as a future Republican candidate with a social network. This DODGE thing is a political ramp for him. The other potential candidate is Zuckerberg with his fascination with ancient Rome. Both are hardly the types to retreat silently and open a charitable foundation like Bill Gates.
"Musk can't highlight specific examples of the federal government pissing our tax money down the drain because of how other people who see it might react."
It is completely legitimate to argue about the use of taxpayer money.
It is not legitimate to launch death threats against a woman who (a) had no involvement in the discussion and (b) was not responsible for the role existing.
>It is not legitimate to launch death threats against a woman who (a) had no involvement in the discussion and (b) was not responsible for the role existing.
Which Musk didn't do? Are all the people who said "Trump is a threat to democracy" and similar statements responsible for the multiple assassination attempts against him?
I encourage you to listen to the 4 part series Elon Musk Unmasked [1] from Tech won't save us.
His motivations are definitely not for the betterment of the average person.
But I'm not sure I can relate to the criticism you're levying here, because I don't expect that anyone's motivations would ever be "for the betterment of the average person", nor trust anyone who pretended to be so motivated.
Society improves when people create positive externalities for others as they pursue their own benefit -- those who deliberately apply their own subjective notion of "benefit" onto strangers they don't know and to whom they aren't accountable will often do much more harm than good.
I take offense to the idea that you wouldn't trust anyone who said they were motivated by "the betterment of the average person." (Not really take offense, more like armchair take offense, but you know what I mean.)
My free time is dedicated to projects that I believe have the potential to improve the world for the greatest number of people. I wrote a few books motivated by this, and then when I became a software engineer I build a few projects motivated by the same.
Examples include messaiah.ai, consciousness.social, multizoa.com, and dex.thesacred.xyz (though that one may not be functional anymore)
Not saying that they did the job - but that won't stop me from trying. Why I do it is a whole other discussion, but if I'm motivated by this, then there must be others, since I can't be THAT unique.
One of the reasons why I became a software engineer was to be able to bring to life projects that I believe have the potential to lead to "betterment for the average person," so...joke's on you :p
> I take offense to the idea that you wouldn't trust anyone who said they were motivated by "the betterment of the average person."
I'm afraid no offense is on offer (and it's rude to take things that aren't offered to you).
But to the point, anyone who said such a thing is either (a) lying, or (b) is projecting their own notion of what's better/best onto other people without those other people's involvement. Neither case reflects a trustworthy individual -- the first is motivated by malice, and the second is motivated by arrogance.
> My free time is dedicated to projects that I believe have the potential to improve the world for the greatest number of people.
Would you stop working on those projects if you were convinced they wouldn't improve the world for the greatest number of people, but were still interesting and useful to you?
If the people who you thought they were going to benefit didn't agree with you, and didn't want to use what you were offering them, would you accept that, or would you resent them and begin contriving ways to get them using it anyway?
Do you acknowledge that there's at least a little bit of arrogance inherent in having any beliefs about what's better for other people without those other people's own input?
> Examples include messaiah.ai, consciousness.social, multizoa.com, and dex.thesacred.xyz (though that one may not be functional anymore)
Again meaning no offense, but I'm going to be completely honest and tell you that I find all of these to be more than a little bit bizarre and creepy, and I think there's a great deal of hubris involved in presenting your LLM chatbot as unironically messianic.
> One of the reasons why I became a software engineer was to be able to bring to life projects that I believe have the potential to lead to "betterment for the average person," so...joke's on you :p
A lot of us did that. The OP article is precisely about how those exact intentions of a couple of decades ago have had quite different outcomes to what was intended.
I don’t think it was about stupidity it was about desire, they would not want to come here because it’s just talking to other nerds on bbs. But bandwidth increased and porn and flash games opened the floodgates.
I guess the mistake was that nerds assumed there were more people like them, or that introducing people into their world would change the people and not have the people change the environment.
I do not think that porn and flash games were the reason the internet became trendy and stupid. I blame social media, like tuenti, facebook, fotolog, hi5, even myspace.
The thing with stupid people overcoming the internet was not corporations investing on publicity nor searching engines selling the rankibgs of searching results. What made stupidity feel safe on internet and become trending, were the spaces that allowed those people to gather, to be in "the same place" with no one there to judge, correct them and laugh at them for being ignorants. This gave them the wrong idea that they were relevant in a sense were despite knowing nothing about anything, their opinion was valid and deserved respect, as much as the opinions from experts.
I’m old enough to have been there, the internet became popular long before modern social media became a thing. Think Geocities -> MySpace —> Facebook etc.
Also modern search manipulation optimized on engagement had a particular moment when both Facebook and Twitter went from showing you a defined set of things to their selected subset of things.
I think back to all of those people talking breathlessly of really free speech and me nodding along just as convinced. Yikes.
I think the bloom came off the flower for me when I participated in the design discussions for Freenet, and I started actually looking at what people were uploading.
Clunky desktop computers connected to the internet in the 90s were already an easy mode. It's a weird point in time to pull the ladder up. I wonder if the people in the 70s shared the same sentiment.
I, for one, am glad the networks became easier and more accessible. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
Technology changes, people don't.