I can't actually think of a single piece of tech made in the past ten years that has improved my life, at least not without large downsides. There's some embedded stuff, like lane assist or adaptive cruise control in my car, that I like, but the package as a whole... not really much of an improvement.
It's not really bad as such that the tech industry want to attempt to make a smart home, or add software to a product, but it's increasingly being done without consideration for the users.
People hate the tech industry, and that includes those who work in it, because it's pretty clear that the industry really doesn't give a shit about it's users, because the users are rarely the customers anymore.
> lane assist or adaptive cruise control in my car
The hilarious thing is that the EU decided that the assisting must be mandatory, and so now every time you turn on your 2024 or newer car, lane assist and "you're speeding!" warnings are turned on.
At least there's still a way to turn them off/getting in the car means sit down, seat belt, mirrors, turn on the engine, go to settings and switch off the nanny modes...
The silicon valley tech industry went from being a consumer products industry to being an advertising industry. Consumer products companies see the person buying their stuff as the customer. Advertising companies see them as the product.
In terms of consumer benefit in tech we've been at statis for a long time. My computing experience isn't that much different now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Sure, my computer and connectivity are far faster now, and thanks to Apple Silicon I can go whole days at conferences without plugging my laptop in, but those are incremental improvements not sea changes. We did fine with 4-hour laptops in 1999.
Also a number of "improvements" just aren't, like smart home devices and IoT crap. Virtually none of those things have made good on the marketers' promises, and 100% of them require some tech family member to end up sysadmining the TV or the thermostat or the light switch, and having to do that kind of crap for things that used to Just Work in the most basic sense is insane.
There's been a lot of heavy lifting in the smart speaker space, and it IS true that my 86 year old mother enjoys being able to ask Siri to play any song she wants, but that kind of thing seems picayune compared to what middle-aged nerds thought the second quarter of the 21st century would bring us.
The only area that comes immediately to mind for ME that includes staggering advances is medical care. I had a hip replacement a few years ago that was an OUTPATIENT procedure. A dear friend of mine ignored symptoms and therefore only "caught" his colon cancer well into stage 4 -- and yet still lived 6 years with pretty high quality of life. Time was, a stage 4 diagnosis meant "uh, maybe don't renew your cable this month." Another pal has progressive MS; 15 years ago, there were no therapies AT ALL for it. Now there is one, and it's making a difference for him and his family.
Nothing on that scale has shown up from "the tech industry" in a long time.
With all the money floating around in tech you'd think PR would be solveable. But you still have AI founders going out in public and saying they want to get rid of jobs instead of some pitch about how easy work will get or you'll be happier or etc. Why?
> But you still have AI founders going out in public and saying they want to get rid of jobs instead of some pitch about how easy work will get or you'll be happier or etc. Why?
Or compare Musk's promises to what's delivered. His self-driving timelines has its own Wikipedia page; how much he opined DOGE could save could be falsified by the top-level breakdown of the US federal budget. He used to be worried about AI, "With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon", now he's saying he wants more Tesla shares for the "robot army" which his SpaceX presentations say will be a billion* strong.
* though if you just naïvely apply the numbers here, that factory will also be "on fire": https://www.terafab.ai
Why? Because their messaging is not addressing the general public, but their investors. And they've realized that their investors are really receptive to panic-baiting (we'll get rid of jobs, ASI is right around the corner, p(doom) = 25% etc).
This doesn't answer GPs question, though: Why is a panic-baiting "we'll get rid of jobs" better than some gain-baiting "we'll make your workforce 10x more productive"? Why is panic a better response to investors than gain?
We got:
- A: "AI helps in automating tedious tasks"
- B: "Your workforce can be more motivated and productive"
- C: "You can do more with fewer people"
Why not advertise A → B, stop there and let their customers do the reasoning for B → C themselves? Why go straight to a hyperbolic A → C and swallow all the hate that comes with it?
My own presumption is that we got that strange fetish for optimization (C) and just don't trust our own ambitions to make the potential gain in productivity (B) work any other way.
It’s because they don’t pitch to the users. They pitch to the investors. Have noticed how everyone and their dog now has an “AI story” on their website? Yeah, because they won’t get funding otherwise. And these are not even the AI companies!
"Get rid of jobs" was a pitch to investors. They needed a new trillion dollar idea. For it to be worth a trillion dollars it has to take a trillion dollars from somewhere. They looked at the economy and decided the only place it could come from is white collar payroll.
Unfortunately for them more than just the investors were paying attention to the pitch. So now they are trying to say "of course it won't unemploy people (wink) it may even create more jobs (snicker)."
> For it to be worth a trillion dollars it has to take a trillion dollars from somewhere.
Musk's SpaceX TAM is roughly as you say, it's "subsume all currently existing desk jobs", which makes it simultaneously absurdly over-confident in the short term and treating this all as a zero-sum game where those jobs just go away and no new (potentially also automatable) jobs get invented, which in turn says he doesn't think anywhere is going to shift from primary and secondary economies to tertiary economies.
Zuckerberg may be full of himself, but does at least (pay someone else to?) write a vision that at least has growth-sounding phrases in it: https://www.meta.com/superintelligence/
> go around such perception shifts through money alone.
Have the people with money considered doing more charitable acts/events for the people with less money to demonstrate that the tech industry isn't just here to extract wealth from the poor/many and transfer it to rich/few?
> to demonstrate that the tech industry isn't just here to extract wealth from the poor/many and transfer it to rich/few?
I think the problem is that the tech industry in large is just here to extract wealth from the many and transfer it to the few. That's why it's focused on scale.
People aren't dumb, and most of the time they can see when they're on the receiving end of an extractive relationship - even if there's lots of PR work going on to hide that reality from them.
I don’t know how much it has ever been true, but it feels like today’s wealthy, especially in tech, have completely abandoned “noblesse oblige” - fulfilling social responsibilities that their wealth should bring them.
It is not PR issue. AI founders in fact do want to get rid of jobs and create permanent underclass. That is their actual real goal. Better PR would make people realize it later, but that it is. And whether we realize it or not does not matter. Tech CEOs they already captured so much power, that it does not matter what "masses" think, feel or whether they suffer.
AI founders are OK with people hating them, because people truly absolutely dont matter.
I think this article overestimates how much the average person knows about tech. People know who Musk, Bezos, and Gates are, but hardly anyone outside of tech knows who Collison is. Most don't know much about VC funding either, but they certainly can see when products have become too smart to the point where they get needlessly complicated.
> And it goes on, and on, and on. Modern “tech companies” haven’t come up with any aspect of life they haven’t tried to “disrupt,” for the purposes of addicting you and then enshitifying the service by shoving ads in front of your eyes. Woohoo, the future!
Also:
1. Tech is full or arrogant assholes who thing they know better than everyone. That leads to things like ham-handed attempts at gaslighting. It's especially grating when it's coming from some 25 year old kid.
2. The whole "making the world better" facade has fallen away. It's pretty clear a lot of them are selfish, greedy fucks. See: jamming AI and everyone's face and all the variations of "stop hiring humans."
Funnily enough, I ran across an article this morning titled "What you hate about AI is the capitalism." and I feel like you can basically apply that to all tech!
It’s probably naive to assume a different system would cure all our ills. But I do wonder - if humanity acted for the collective good instead of individual self-interest, how different would our technology be? And how different would we be because of it?
Re the linked piece, I'm concerned about people saying "they hate us" when they really mean "they disagree with us" or "they seem skeptical of what we say." It can easily become click bait.
The language changes, sure ... but equating disagreement with the emotion of hatred? Maybe that language change is a bad idea? Just spitballing here.
I'm with you in spirit wrt lowering the temp and avoiding clickbait. I want the internet and the world to be a better place with more peace and loving kindness, creativity and connection. But in this case -- describing the general public's feelings towards the ultra-rich, IMHO "disagree" and "skeptical" are just too watered-down; they don't convey all the legitimate feelings of resentment, fear, distaste, distrust, indignation, etc that feed into something typically described as "hate". ):
I think when you couple extreme wealth inequality with extreme mis-allocation of capital (aka societal energy) with no buy in from the population, you (the Stanford educated elite - not you specifically) run the risk of getting your fucking head chopped off.
In my opinion tech used to be fun and we used to create products that actually empower people. Think MySpace, early-days Facebook, Soundcloud, Ableton Live etc. They exist to empower the masses to connect and to create.
Today the business model has made every products and contents to be enshittified.
We've optimised for the wrong thing and not only the common people hate the tech industry. Even I no longer feels the joy of working in tech.
YouTube empowers millions of creators around the world.
It's more about the fact that at a sufficiently large scale any platform faces the same issues. Some creators are terrible without breaking the rules, people argue, etc.
I think that just highlights how “empowerment” through tech is biased towards producers, which makes sense because that aligns with the usual business propositions.
For consumers, YT is not empowering. It fulfills a need, well enough to tie them to the platform. But it is obviously not set up to hand them any more power than to serve that goal. You want to shield yourself from wasting time here? Sorry, not sorry, our goal is to steal your attention and entertain you just enough that you keep scrolling.
I'd argue the very expression "creating content" is a euphemism for producing shit, of which algorithm driven platforms like Youtube excel at promoting.
> YouTube empowers millions of creators around the world.
Agree.
But it empowers them to vie for attention in mostly the worst ways possible and, overwhelmingly, has led to a lot of bad content. There's some gems too. But, by and large, YouTube is less desirable for me to use than it was 10 years ago and I think it's because of the transformation into an industry, rather than an indie platform that also paid out.
It feels like it went from a farmer's market with a lot of local farmers selling their goods to shopping at Walmart.
Information systems has always been about empowering business leaders to produce more with less human effort. In that respect, AI for example has been a game changer. Everything else was a sideshow.
If you've been leaning hard on programming and lack the people skills to join the business class, that's on you. Things are going to get very hard for you in the near future, if they haven't already. People skills are the new moat.
I didn't say you did. But the industry is full of people with technical acumen but little in the way of people skills or a knack for business needs; and in the supposedly halcyon days of the past many of them could grow rich, or at least popular, by developing something cool. These people are going to have a very bad time.
At the start founders got the joy from making products that makes people happy. Then it inevitably evolves to chasing the dopamine of achieving larger and larger numbers based on some quantifiable metrics.
The tech industry took essential human things away from regular people and sold it back to them as metered services.
Social skills, friends, short term memory, dating, sex, intelligence etc
Tech intentionally exploits regular people for its own gain, intentionally breaking peoples brains for techs profit.
In short "tech" doesn't care about anything but the "bottom line" its the same as the military industrial complex- people break, people die, genocide happens and we empower it... who cares we're getting rich.
No one sees the faces of the military industrial complex but tech CEO's(the faces of the industry) proudly smile for the camera's and rub their billionaire lifestyles in the publics faces.
In short people hate the "tech industry" because it has taken everything away from everyone while enriching a few- and its all public.
Why wouldn't they? It patronizes and infantilizes most of them. You can see the father knows best attitude all over this very forum. Calls for locking users out of their phones for their own good are seen here daily and that is just one example. When something big acts continually to disempower a group of people, of course some of them will resent it.
People hate the tech industry because it has negative effects on their lives, and these effects are deliberate rather than incidental.
There are, of course, some good people/companies/projects in the tech industry, but think about the overall impression of the industry as a whole: careless and malevolent.
The tech industry and its figureheads have
- Lied consistently about their capabilities
- Brazenly flouted the law
- Shoved ads and planned obsolescence and surveillance into everything
- Increased prices again and again
- Supported oppressive governments and war crimes
- Gleefully attempted to remove many people's livelihoods
- Predicted that they would end the world, and then doubled down on the same path
- Pushed technology with the primary aim of CSAM or deepfake pornography
I could keep listing, and again, this isn't every single person in the tech industry. But if you group them all together, you have to take the bad with the good, and there's a lot of bad.
Frankly, the real question is why don't more people hate the tech industry?
1. Tech is associated with a lot of the issues affecting society right now, while other business sectors often aren't. Data centres and the rising price of computer components, social media addiction, gambling apps, surveillance, etc. These are all things in the news or affecting people's daily lives, and the 'tech industry' tends to get the blame for them.
2. Many of the people involved tend to have a bad reputation, even compared to other industries. Musk is the obvious one, but Bezos, Zuckerberg and others like them don't exactly have a great reputation with the general public.
3. As much as I can't blame them sometimes, the media absolutely hates the tech industry and the companies operating in it. Thanks in part to the large social media platforms all but annihilating traditional journalism as a business, there's a lot of hatred aimed at the companies responsible as a result. If you see any news article about a tech related topic that isn't a product announcement (and maybe even then), it's probably going to be a negative one about the dangers and issues with tech.
Some good points, but I think it still treats “tech” as too monolithic. It’s not simply that tech leaders made bad choices or that products are inevitably enshittified. If I had to summarize the root cause I’d say it’s that the scaling properties of tech have enabled capitalist and political excesses with a velocity and power never before seen, and it happened so quickly that we really haven’t had time to even understand what’s happening systematically, let alone update societal norms and governance to address the problems.
1. All about lock in. Trap customers and their data.
2. No purchases, only rentals. You never own anything.
3. Agreements are worth nothing. Today's feature is tomorrows premium feature.
4. Gamification adds an extra edge of badness on the hopes that you'll get what you want.
5. "Updates" rarely help, but almost always harm, in the name of "security"
6. Mergers and acquisitions means nothing is ever safe. Purchasing BigCo (exit) can mean operations cease tomorrow.
7. Enshittification rules always rule how the service will degrade, but not at what speed
8. Easy click to subscribe, but show up in person wearing all black clothing to the basement hidden office behind the no-trespassing sign to the cigarette man to unsubscribe.
9. And even if you THINK you own hardware in your physical possession, firmware updates maintain the real owner and cripple functionality. (PS3 OtherOS, etc)
Or rather, every economist reads the first 20 pages of Smith's Wealth Of Nations, and basically skips everything afterwards.
Like... This gem: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Hating the tech industry is mainly seen amongst the first world countries and the rich educate, high status people amongst them.
I posit that the reasons are
- the need for conservatism and slowing down progress is inherent in people. Last time it was opposing LGBTQ and racial discrimination and now it is technology. Its the same mode of opposition, people just don't like chaotic progress.
- people who have good jobs and high status want to _conserve_ it and not lose position - tech industry keeps threatening the status quo again and again
- for some reason cynicism is seen as signalling a more mature worldview while optimism is seen as childish when the historical trend points to optimism instead
That's a weirdly optimistic view of technology. Specially the comparison to homophobia and racism. Yes, tech has solved people's basic but real needs for communication, banking, entertainment, etc. Then after a certain level, without aggressive dark patterns, people's needs for tech were basically met. No one needed social media, we needed social networks. No one needed inescapable "algorithms"¹ besides the ones trying to screw us over. What is this "status quo" you're talking about? And what is this technology progress that is threatening it?
¹ using the term "algorithms" here in its colloquial non-tech sense.
> Last time it was opposing LGBTQ and racial discrimination and now it is technology.
The attacks on and hate of trans people are on the rise. There seem to be literal strategy of preventing blacks and women from career rise in military and government. And all of these are enabled and helped by tech. The radicalization and hate grows due to our algorithms.
> tech industry keeps threatening the status quo again and again
Tech industry is the status quo, it represents people with good jobs and high status looking down on everyone else. It was like that for decades now. Tech industry is all about creating monopolies, consolidating and killing the competition.
> when the historical trend points to optimism instead
It does not. We failed to manage climate change. The world is moving from stability to chaos, toward more wars. The politics of several countries is turning toward openly fascists. The powerful are less and less accountable, amassing more and more power. Corruption is at unprecedented levels.
Good times already were. We are going toward bad times and things will start improving only after they will get really bad first.
I can tell you read noahpinion or similar neoliberal brainrot and you’re just parroting their “luxury ideas” nonsense.
Maybe you could explain how tech is benefiting the lower and middle classes while exclusively hurting the upper middle class. You know, the class that holds significant amounts of stock in tech companies and may even work for said tech companies. Who have benefited immensely from the industry.
If I had to guess, we’re about 50% of the way towards “peak” hatred of the tech industry.
If the AI bubble pops and drags down the economy with it, we will approach peak hatred. Depending on how much worse things get materially (yes - materially - the gross real world that tech ceos are trying to escape).
Don’t say you weren’t warned, you elitist out of touch Bay Area scumbags.
The article really sums it up perfectly. It's incredibly see to see topical reasons why people fucking hate everything tech touches. You can't buy a TV without it being an embedded advertising device that forces you to see ads every time you turn it on. You can't buy a car without needing a touchscreen that if it breaks you're SOL. People who actually like computers increasingly can't even afford to buy one
If I could I'd toss my TV I bought a decade ago into the garbage can after all of the updates it keeps receiving making it more and more intrusive with advertising. But then I'd have to pay extra for a non-smart TV.
(1) Addiction engineering, and the fact that the tech industry found a way to transform what was supposed to be a machine to improve human education and cognition into a digital version of tobacco or a casino. I am personally disgusted by this. If you're working on a pop "social" app or a game and designing it to have a "compulsion loop," you are doing mind control and you suck.
(2) The fact that a huge number of people in tech have been "pilled" with hyper-elitist fascist-adjacent ideology. This one was a huge shocker to me as I watched it happen, especially because I read the texts and blogs that seemed to be driving it and was like "you people are smart... why are you falling for this?" I am by no means a hard leftist either, used to self-describe as a libertarian back when that meant what it sounds like it means. ... Then I realized that tech is full of nerds who (like me) got picked on in school, and that wound makes "you are aCkTuAllY a member of a cognitive master race" a powerful hook. It's not unique to nerds -- all humans are vulnerable to this pattern. You see it in groups of people who have been mass-abused through genocide or persecution for instance.
(3) A small number of people in tech have gotten rich to Gilded Age levels, and that burns in what I think is a stagflationary environment (we aren't calling it that, but for the "regular economy" we are basically in stagflation). If everyone was doing well and things like housing were affordable, I don't think people would care as much. I know personally I don't care if there are quintillinoaires out there somewhere as long as I am doing well and I can pursue my dreams... but if I'm not, it creates emotions of envy and hostility. This is natural hard-wired brain stem stuff.
Those are all rational reasons IMO and they all make sense.
I think the AI backlash builds mostly on #3, since AI threatens a lot of jobs in a stressed economic environment. The environmental stuff around AI (data center power etc.) is mostly exaggerated (except water in some areas), but its prevalence is driven by the fact that people want to find something to hate about this industry.
As evidence I submit the fact that artists, in my experience, are the most visceral AI haters. I get it. I do not believe AI is a threat to "true art." Not at all. But it is absolutely decimating the boring "potboiler" work artists used to use to make a living while they worked on the former, and it's always been brutally hard to make a living as an artist. AI also threatens programmers, but in that case we're talking maybe being knocked down from upper middle class to middle class not from lower middle class to bankruptcy.
(Total tangent -- I ran some numbers. If you telework 1-2 days a week, depending on your commute, you more than make up for using something like Claude Code heavily all day long. Same goes for skipping that DoorDash order. Cars use insane amounts of power if you really look, much more than data centers on an amortized per-user basis.)
+1 especially on (2). In that sense the article being from 2023 is itself interesting as a document of change. The article mentioned no one cared about Bezos for example, but with Data Centers wreaking havoc on communities with energy prices, water supply and noise while he takes over Venice, suddenly it was in people's backyards and turns out they do care.
I think you've got good points. With respect to #3 I think there's a general problem with concentration of capital and general "hoarding".
One example. Berkshire Hathaway has $400 billion dollars in the bank that they can't invest because they need high returns. So the capital is locked up. (The banks who hold the funds are restricted in what they can invest in).
Multiply this by loads of other companies. Add in funds stashed in tax havens. And just plain individual savings of people terrified about being poor in their old age.
My point is that the rich problem is not restricted to tech. Although it is quite visible
I'm not sure that's really true. The banks that hold Berkshire's money don't just stick it in a vault, they lend it out to people who want to finance a home or car or to businesses that use the money to grow.
I need to qualify my "I don't care if there are quadrillionaires" comment.
In theory, all other things aside, it is true. I mean, look up at the stars. For all I know there are functionally immortal super-minds out there who have not known pain for millions of years. Their existence is not a problem for me.
But "we live in a society," and unfortunately other peoples' extreme wealth can cause problems for me.
One is by bidding up assets. The super-rich park their money. Parked money goes into things like PE. PE can't find enough stuff to do with it, so they do shit like buy up housing and hold it off the market to profit from real estate appreciation. That makes it harder for me to find a good place to live. That's just one example.
I actually coined a term for the above: financial pollution. Financial pollution is any time someone else's money being invested does harm rather than helps, usually by driving up asset prices, massively distorting a market, or being invested in the creation of rent-seeking schemes. A classic example of financial pollution would be the real estate market in cities that allow a lot of overseas investors to park money in real estate.
Financial pollution is the opposite of productive investment that does things like creates jobs and builds things.
Another is that extreme wealth distorts politics. One of the libertarian things I like in theory is the idea of separation of economy and state, but in practice that's a brutally hard thing to achieve... much harder than separation of church and state. It is true from a social contract and legal point of view that money is not the same as physical coercion, and the state has a monopoly on the latter, but if you have loads of money you can buy the people who run the state and therefore obtain direct access to physical coercion. That's the problem. The super-rich can buy the government and then use force to maintain their status or pursue their own personal cultural, religious, or national peeves and hobby horses.
Name an industry anyone likes, aside from the money they might be making off it. They're all now hated for the same reasons, caused by the same, scarily small, group of people.
I don't think we, as common engineers, can absolve ourselves of all blame. For a time we were in incredible demand and all we've made of it is: some people earned enough to retire early, buy nice cars, or start their own business.
But that demand could have been turned into real power. Now it's too late.
I mean sure... but I vote for education tax levies whenever they come up and choose to live somewhere where they pass. I wouldn't call my emotions about it negative.
Is this a sarcasm? I hate them trying to upsell their stuff or lie about the products(almost all of the product marketing in beauty industry is a lie) or oversell their services.
If I were to guess, I think what you mean interacting with them not the money extraction part?
I'd say farming. Not agriculture in general, Monsanto is one of the most hated companies, so is John Deere, and farmers hate them too, but the ones working on the field, preferably crops over livestock.
I think that farmers are somehow immune despite having their fair share of evil because we all understand that without them, we would all die.
And yet all this power in the hands of the very few are only there because the rest of us don't know any better than coordinating for their benefit rather than coordinating in any other way.
The problem isn't capitalism, well it's not JUST capitalism. If you give any group of individuals that level of wealth control, the same pattern repeats. They can be shareholders, board directors, or commissars or general secretaries of the people's party, a prince or a duke, or the first citizen.
It doesn't matter, all you need to replicate the same problems is concentration of wealth and power and the ability to direct it.
To the extent that people hate tech, it's because:
1. Tech is our "new money". New money is always hated, by every generation
2. Tech represents change and the human animal dislikes change. Most people are okay with everything that exists when they turn 25 and dislike everything that appears after
3. Tech represents capitalism in a pure form. Creative destruction reigns; companies and apps can rise and fall overnight. Ways of life are precarious and the constant churn bothers people
All three really come down to people disliking change. Instead of hating/fearinf change and dynamism, people should look inward. Establish a routine. Exercise. Garden. Read. Cook. It's more within your power than ever before to decide what you like and pursue it at your own pace. But don't expect the external world to meet your desire for stasis.
> Most people outside the tech industry don’t care
This is and always will be incorrect and just the go-to excuse and/or justification. People do care but their brains are too muddy from stress, lies, ambiguous information and the lack of time to separate truth from campaigns/propaganda/proprietary agendas.
This can be interpreted as people not actively caring, as in the infamous "nobody cares" and "nobody can do anything about that anyway" but it's actually passive carelessness that has it's origin in a conspiratorial kind of treatment of lower classes by upper classes. But that's boring.
What's exciting is that it holds true upwards. Top 10% earners "don't care" if they "loose" 50000 dollars due to fraud by people "above their pay grade".
Hop, hop, hop ... people hate the tech industry because they somewhat expect that skilled and/or smart people with resources, opportunity and time do things the right way ... because they can, because they say "we can" and "we will" and "the people" a lot in various ways.
It causes at least a little nausea to suddenly realize that young or middle aged or seasoned engineers and business people behave like aging placeholder representatives that were picked because they are "representative enough".
This, of course, partially stems from several cognitive fallacies about the things that evolution and expertise seem to imply but don't.
In the end, it's not hate but recurring disillusionment and disappointment ... that the tech industry is no better than 13 year old drug dealers getting the teens next door hooked on punched bullshit or violent pimps and malpracticing doctors.
"It's a shame, really."
That said, the tech industry is doing it's job and delivers and it's human nature to expect "more" from capable people as well as to be disappointed when they don't--especially when patterns of malicious intent emerge and become systematic and systemic ... which has been halpening over and over again ...
I can't actually think of a single piece of tech made in the past ten years that has improved my life, at least not without large downsides. There's some embedded stuff, like lane assist or adaptive cruise control in my car, that I like, but the package as a whole... not really much of an improvement.
It's not really bad as such that the tech industry want to attempt to make a smart home, or add software to a product, but it's increasingly being done without consideration for the users.
People hate the tech industry, and that includes those who work in it, because it's pretty clear that the industry really doesn't give a shit about it's users, because the users are rarely the customers anymore.
> lane assist or adaptive cruise control in my car
The hilarious thing is that the EU decided that the assisting must be mandatory, and so now every time you turn on your 2024 or newer car, lane assist and "you're speeding!" warnings are turned on.
At least there's still a way to turn them off/getting in the car means sit down, seat belt, mirrors, turn on the engine, go to settings and switch off the nanny modes...
This is it.
The silicon valley tech industry went from being a consumer products industry to being an advertising industry. Consumer products companies see the person buying their stuff as the customer. Advertising companies see them as the product.
Plus the monopolies..
Yeah, this.
In terms of consumer benefit in tech we've been at statis for a long time. My computing experience isn't that much different now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Sure, my computer and connectivity are far faster now, and thanks to Apple Silicon I can go whole days at conferences without plugging my laptop in, but those are incremental improvements not sea changes. We did fine with 4-hour laptops in 1999.
Also a number of "improvements" just aren't, like smart home devices and IoT crap. Virtually none of those things have made good on the marketers' promises, and 100% of them require some tech family member to end up sysadmining the TV or the thermostat or the light switch, and having to do that kind of crap for things that used to Just Work in the most basic sense is insane.
There's been a lot of heavy lifting in the smart speaker space, and it IS true that my 86 year old mother enjoys being able to ask Siri to play any song she wants, but that kind of thing seems picayune compared to what middle-aged nerds thought the second quarter of the 21st century would bring us.
The only area that comes immediately to mind for ME that includes staggering advances is medical care. I had a hip replacement a few years ago that was an OUTPATIENT procedure. A dear friend of mine ignored symptoms and therefore only "caught" his colon cancer well into stage 4 -- and yet still lived 6 years with pretty high quality of life. Time was, a stage 4 diagnosis meant "uh, maybe don't renew your cable this month." Another pal has progressive MS; 15 years ago, there were no therapies AT ALL for it. Now there is one, and it's making a difference for him and his family.
Nothing on that scale has shown up from "the tech industry" in a long time.
With all the money floating around in tech you'd think PR would be solveable. But you still have AI founders going out in public and saying they want to get rid of jobs instead of some pitch about how easy work will get or you'll be happier or etc. Why?
> But you still have AI founders going out in public and saying they want to get rid of jobs instead of some pitch about how easy work will get or you'll be happier or etc. Why?
Even if they did, would you believe them? Here's Zuckerberg on how he sees "Personal Superintelligence": https://www.meta.com/superintelligence/
Compare that to the $1.4 trillion lawsuit now in the news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48817682
Or compare Musk's promises to what's delivered. His self-driving timelines has its own Wikipedia page; how much he opined DOGE could save could be falsified by the top-level breakdown of the US federal budget. He used to be worried about AI, "With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon", now he's saying he wants more Tesla shares for the "robot army" which his SpaceX presentations say will be a billion* strong.
* though if you just naïvely apply the numbers here, that factory will also be "on fire": https://www.terafab.ai
Why? Because their messaging is not addressing the general public, but their investors. And they've realized that their investors are really receptive to panic-baiting (we'll get rid of jobs, ASI is right around the corner, p(doom) = 25% etc).
This doesn't answer GPs question, though: Why is a panic-baiting "we'll get rid of jobs" better than some gain-baiting "we'll make your workforce 10x more productive"? Why is panic a better response to investors than gain?
We got:
- A: "AI helps in automating tedious tasks"
- B: "Your workforce can be more motivated and productive"
- C: "You can do more with fewer people"
Why not advertise A → B, stop there and let their customers do the reasoning for B → C themselves? Why go straight to a hyperbolic A → C and swallow all the hate that comes with it?
My own presumption is that we got that strange fetish for optimization (C) and just don't trust our own ambitions to make the potential gain in productivity (B) work any other way.
It’s because they don’t pitch to the users. They pitch to the investors. Have noticed how everyone and their dog now has an “AI story” on their website? Yeah, because they won’t get funding otherwise. And these are not even the AI companies!
Few founders do this and the ones who do are solving their own problems. For Anthropic it's primarily hiring.
But as a PR person I can guarantee you it's not possible to go around such perception shifts through money alone.
"Get rid of jobs" was a pitch to investors. They needed a new trillion dollar idea. For it to be worth a trillion dollars it has to take a trillion dollars from somewhere. They looked at the economy and decided the only place it could come from is white collar payroll.
Unfortunately for them more than just the investors were paying attention to the pitch. So now they are trying to say "of course it won't unemploy people (wink) it may even create more jobs (snicker)."
> For it to be worth a trillion dollars it has to take a trillion dollars from somewhere.
Musk's SpaceX TAM is roughly as you say, it's "subsume all currently existing desk jobs", which makes it simultaneously absurdly over-confident in the short term and treating this all as a zero-sum game where those jobs just go away and no new (potentially also automatable) jobs get invented, which in turn says he doesn't think anywhere is going to shift from primary and secondary economies to tertiary economies.
Zuckerberg may be full of himself, but does at least (pay someone else to?) write a vision that at least has growth-sounding phrases in it: https://www.meta.com/superintelligence/
> go around such perception shifts through money alone.
Have the people with money considered doing more charitable acts/events for the people with less money to demonstrate that the tech industry isn't just here to extract wealth from the poor/many and transfer it to rich/few?
> to demonstrate that the tech industry isn't just here to extract wealth from the poor/many and transfer it to rich/few?
I think the problem is that the tech industry in large is just here to extract wealth from the many and transfer it to the few. That's why it's focused on scale.
People aren't dumb, and most of the time they can see when they're on the receiving end of an extractive relationship - even if there's lots of PR work going on to hide that reality from them.
I don’t know how much it has ever been true, but it feels like today’s wealthy, especially in tech, have completely abandoned “noblesse oblige” - fulfilling social responsibilities that their wealth should bring them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
They live in a bubble and don’t understand that getting rid of jobs is not universally seen as a good thing.
If you haven’t read it already, I can recommend “Careless People”, this is a constant theme in the book.
Because they are selfish and would prefer to make millions selling to big companies who want to pay less for labour.
I mean, to be fair, basically the only way to raise the amount of capital required to keep growing LLMs was to sell a story at this scale.
I think the real error was the notion that they could sell this story to investors without the rest of the population noticing.
Is it an error though? The general public has noticed, everyone hates their guts but investment is still flowing.
It is not PR issue. AI founders in fact do want to get rid of jobs and create permanent underclass. That is their actual real goal. Better PR would make people realize it later, but that it is. And whether we realize it or not does not matter. Tech CEOs they already captured so much power, that it does not matter what "masses" think, feel or whether they suffer.
AI founders are OK with people hating them, because people truly absolutely dont matter.
Bankers had it bad for a long time. Now it's our turn!
It's the same people. Before 2008 they used to go into banking, now they entered tech instead.
I'd say this explains why all the code is bad now, but I remember what it used to look like too.
Is that because Bankers have mostly disappeared as a profession people deal with in person?
I think this article overestimates how much the average person knows about tech. People know who Musk, Bezos, and Gates are, but hardly anyone outside of tech knows who Collison is. Most don't know much about VC funding either, but they certainly can see when products have become too smart to the point where they get needlessly complicated.
These points are made in the article.
> And it goes on, and on, and on. Modern “tech companies” haven’t come up with any aspect of life they haven’t tried to “disrupt,” for the purposes of addicting you and then enshitifying the service by shoving ads in front of your eyes. Woohoo, the future!
Also:
1. Tech is full or arrogant assholes who thing they know better than everyone. That leads to things like ham-handed attempts at gaslighting. It's especially grating when it's coming from some 25 year old kid.
2. The whole "making the world better" facade has fallen away. It's pretty clear a lot of them are selfish, greedy fucks. See: jamming AI and everyone's face and all the variations of "stop hiring humans."
Funnily enough, I ran across an article this morning titled "What you hate about AI is the capitalism." and I feel like you can basically apply that to all tech!
It’s probably naive to assume a different system would cure all our ills. But I do wonder - if humanity acted for the collective good instead of individual self-interest, how different would our technology be? And how different would we be because of it?
Link to the article for those interested: https://graceblakeley.substack.com/p/what-you-hate-about-ai-...
Yeah. "Hate": https://www.kapwing.com/blog/why-does-the-public-hate-the-te...
Re the linked piece, I'm concerned about people saying "they hate us" when they really mean "they disagree with us" or "they seem skeptical of what we say." It can easily become click bait.
The language changes, sure ... but equating disagreement with the emotion of hatred? Maybe that language change is a bad idea? Just spitballing here.
I'm with you in spirit wrt lowering the temp and avoiding clickbait. I want the internet and the world to be a better place with more peace and loving kindness, creativity and connection. But in this case -- describing the general public's feelings towards the ultra-rich, IMHO "disagree" and "skeptical" are just too watered-down; they don't convey all the legitimate feelings of resentment, fear, distaste, distrust, indignation, etc that feed into something typically described as "hate". ):
Sure. If it really is hate, then that's the right word.
I think hate is the perfect word.
Can I ask for more info? Is it the perfect word for how some people feel about the tech industry? The perfect word to describe disagreement?
I think when you couple extreme wealth inequality with extreme mis-allocation of capital (aka societal energy) with no buy in from the population, you (the Stanford educated elite - not you specifically) run the risk of getting your fucking head chopped off.
Sure, of course. I'm trying to draw a distinction between disagreement and hate. I'm not trying to eliminate either one.
In my opinion tech used to be fun and we used to create products that actually empower people. Think MySpace, early-days Facebook, Soundcloud, Ableton Live etc. They exist to empower the masses to connect and to create.
Today the business model has made every products and contents to be enshittified.
We've optimised for the wrong thing and not only the common people hate the tech industry. Even I no longer feels the joy of working in tech.
When it comes to empowering, I am not sure much beats Excel. It lets non techy people codify amazing things and get real work done.
YouTube empowers millions of creators around the world.
It's more about the fact that at a sufficiently large scale any platform faces the same issues. Some creators are terrible without breaking the rules, people argue, etc.
I think that just highlights how “empowerment” through tech is biased towards producers, which makes sense because that aligns with the usual business propositions.
For consumers, YT is not empowering. It fulfills a need, well enough to tie them to the platform. But it is obviously not set up to hand them any more power than to serve that goal. You want to shield yourself from wasting time here? Sorry, not sorry, our goal is to steal your attention and entertain you just enough that you keep scrolling.
> creators
I'd argue the very expression "creating content" is a euphemism for producing shit, of which algorithm driven platforms like Youtube excel at promoting.
> YouTube empowers millions of creators around the world.
Agree.
But it empowers them to vie for attention in mostly the worst ways possible and, overwhelmingly, has led to a lot of bad content. There's some gems too. But, by and large, YouTube is less desirable for me to use than it was 10 years ago and I think it's because of the transformation into an industry, rather than an indie platform that also paid out.
It feels like it went from a farmer's market with a lot of local farmers selling their goods to shopping at Walmart.
Information systems has always been about empowering business leaders to produce more with less human effort. In that respect, AI for example has been a game changer. Everything else was a sideshow.
If you've been leaning hard on programming and lack the people skills to join the business class, that's on you. Things are going to get very hard for you in the near future, if they haven't already. People skills are the new moat.
> If you've been leaning hard on programming and lack the people skills to join the business class, that's on you.
where did i say that I've been solely leaning hard on programming and not focusing on the people skill?
I didn't say you did. But the industry is full of people with technical acumen but little in the way of people skills or a knack for business needs; and in the supposedly halcyon days of the past many of them could grow rich, or at least popular, by developing something cool. These people are going to have a very bad time.
As always, capitalism can be counted on to destroy anything it touches.
At the start founders got the joy from making products that makes people happy. Then it inevitably evolves to chasing the dopamine of achieving larger and larger numbers based on some quantifiable metrics.
Without the promise of return most promising technology would never have been created.
Agreed. Such is the duality.
On the list of extremely annoying things you can put on a webpage, a cat constantly running after my cursor is definitely a new one for me.
This is probably showing both our ages that this is new to you and very old for me.
The tech industry took essential human things away from regular people and sold it back to them as metered services.
Social skills, friends, short term memory, dating, sex, intelligence etc
Tech intentionally exploits regular people for its own gain, intentionally breaking peoples brains for techs profit.
In short "tech" doesn't care about anything but the "bottom line" its the same as the military industrial complex- people break, people die, genocide happens and we empower it... who cares we're getting rich.
No one sees the faces of the military industrial complex but tech CEO's(the faces of the industry) proudly smile for the camera's and rub their billionaire lifestyles in the publics faces.
In short people hate the "tech industry" because it has taken everything away from everyone while enriching a few- and its all public.
Why wouldn't they? It patronizes and infantilizes most of them. You can see the father knows best attitude all over this very forum. Calls for locking users out of their phones for their own good are seen here daily and that is just one example. When something big acts continually to disempower a group of people, of course some of them will resent it.
People hate the tech industry because it has negative effects on their lives, and these effects are deliberate rather than incidental.
There are, of course, some good people/companies/projects in the tech industry, but think about the overall impression of the industry as a whole: careless and malevolent.
The tech industry and its figureheads have
- Lied consistently about their capabilities
- Brazenly flouted the law
- Shoved ads and planned obsolescence and surveillance into everything
- Increased prices again and again
- Supported oppressive governments and war crimes
- Gleefully attempted to remove many people's livelihoods
- Predicted that they would end the world, and then doubled down on the same path
- Deployed bots everywhere, polluting online communities
- Pushed technology with the primary aim of CSAM or deepfake pornography
I could keep listing, and again, this isn't every single person in the tech industry. But if you group them all together, you have to take the bad with the good, and there's a lot of bad.
Frankly, the real question is why don't more people hate the tech industry?
I think there are a few reasons to note here:
1. Tech is associated with a lot of the issues affecting society right now, while other business sectors often aren't. Data centres and the rising price of computer components, social media addiction, gambling apps, surveillance, etc. These are all things in the news or affecting people's daily lives, and the 'tech industry' tends to get the blame for them.
2. Many of the people involved tend to have a bad reputation, even compared to other industries. Musk is the obvious one, but Bezos, Zuckerberg and others like them don't exactly have a great reputation with the general public.
3. As much as I can't blame them sometimes, the media absolutely hates the tech industry and the companies operating in it. Thanks in part to the large social media platforms all but annihilating traditional journalism as a business, there's a lot of hatred aimed at the companies responsible as a result. If you see any news article about a tech related topic that isn't a product announcement (and maybe even then), it's probably going to be a negative one about the dangers and issues with tech.
I beg to differ on point 3. The media has been extremely accommodating to the AI evangelists.
Good article, but damm, the cat was annoying. I was really distracting, I had to edit the page to remove it.
I just used the keyboard to navigate so the cat didn't move.
Fucking duh...
1 it seems like every successful company is headed by self centered assholes 2 enshittification
Some good points, but I think it still treats “tech” as too monolithic. It’s not simply that tech leaders made bad choices or that products are inevitably enshittified. If I had to summarize the root cause I’d say it’s that the scaling properties of tech have enabled capitalist and political excesses with a velocity and power never before seen, and it happened so quickly that we really haven’t had time to even understand what’s happening systematically, let alone update societal norms and governance to address the problems.
Because its...
1. All about lock in. Trap customers and their data.
2. No purchases, only rentals. You never own anything.
3. Agreements are worth nothing. Today's feature is tomorrows premium feature.
4. Gamification adds an extra edge of badness on the hopes that you'll get what you want.
5. "Updates" rarely help, but almost always harm, in the name of "security"
6. Mergers and acquisitions means nothing is ever safe. Purchasing BigCo (exit) can mean operations cease tomorrow.
7. Enshittification rules always rule how the service will degrade, but not at what speed
8. Easy click to subscribe, but show up in person wearing all black clothing to the basement hidden office behind the no-trespassing sign to the cigarette man to unsubscribe.
9. And even if you THINK you own hardware in your physical possession, firmware updates maintain the real owner and cripple functionality. (PS3 OtherOS, etc)
So could it be Capitalism?
Linear growth is a failure; only infinite, exponential growth is acceptable.
Yes, yes it is.
Or rather, every economist reads the first 20 pages of Smith's Wealth Of Nations, and basically skips everything afterwards.
Like... This gem: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Hating the tech industry is mainly seen amongst the first world countries and the rich educate, high status people amongst them.
I posit that the reasons are
- the need for conservatism and slowing down progress is inherent in people. Last time it was opposing LGBTQ and racial discrimination and now it is technology. Its the same mode of opposition, people just don't like chaotic progress.
- people who have good jobs and high status want to _conserve_ it and not lose position - tech industry keeps threatening the status quo again and again
- for some reason cynicism is seen as signalling a more mature worldview while optimism is seen as childish when the historical trend points to optimism instead
That's a weirdly optimistic view of technology. Specially the comparison to homophobia and racism. Yes, tech has solved people's basic but real needs for communication, banking, entertainment, etc. Then after a certain level, without aggressive dark patterns, people's needs for tech were basically met. No one needed social media, we needed social networks. No one needed inescapable "algorithms"¹ besides the ones trying to screw us over. What is this "status quo" you're talking about? And what is this technology progress that is threatening it?
¹ using the term "algorithms" here in its colloquial non-tech sense.
> Last time it was opposing LGBTQ and racial discrimination and now it is technology.
The attacks on and hate of trans people are on the rise. There seem to be literal strategy of preventing blacks and women from career rise in military and government. And all of these are enabled and helped by tech. The radicalization and hate grows due to our algorithms.
> tech industry keeps threatening the status quo again and again
Tech industry is the status quo, it represents people with good jobs and high status looking down on everyone else. It was like that for decades now. Tech industry is all about creating monopolies, consolidating and killing the competition.
> when the historical trend points to optimism instead
It does not. We failed to manage climate change. The world is moving from stability to chaos, toward more wars. The politics of several countries is turning toward openly fascists. The powerful are less and less accountable, amassing more and more power. Corruption is at unprecedented levels.
Good times already were. We are going toward bad times and things will start improving only after they will get really bad first.
I can tell you read noahpinion or similar neoliberal brainrot and you’re just parroting their “luxury ideas” nonsense.
Maybe you could explain how tech is benefiting the lower and middle classes while exclusively hurting the upper middle class. You know, the class that holds significant amounts of stock in tech companies and may even work for said tech companies. Who have benefited immensely from the industry.
Why does it have to exclusively hurt upper middle class? I’m not sure why you added that constraint.
If I had to guess, we’re about 50% of the way towards “peak” hatred of the tech industry.
If the AI bubble pops and drags down the economy with it, we will approach peak hatred. Depending on how much worse things get materially (yes - materially - the gross real world that tech ceos are trying to escape).
Don’t say you weren’t warned, you elitist out of touch Bay Area scumbags.
The article really sums it up perfectly. It's incredibly see to see topical reasons why people fucking hate everything tech touches. You can't buy a TV without it being an embedded advertising device that forces you to see ads every time you turn it on. You can't buy a car without needing a touchscreen that if it breaks you're SOL. People who actually like computers increasingly can't even afford to buy one
If I could I'd toss my TV I bought a decade ago into the garbage can after all of the updates it keeps receiving making it more and more intrusive with advertising. But then I'd have to pay extra for a non-smart TV.
For the people I know, the biggest things are:
(1) Addiction engineering, and the fact that the tech industry found a way to transform what was supposed to be a machine to improve human education and cognition into a digital version of tobacco or a casino. I am personally disgusted by this. If you're working on a pop "social" app or a game and designing it to have a "compulsion loop," you are doing mind control and you suck.
(2) The fact that a huge number of people in tech have been "pilled" with hyper-elitist fascist-adjacent ideology. This one was a huge shocker to me as I watched it happen, especially because I read the texts and blogs that seemed to be driving it and was like "you people are smart... why are you falling for this?" I am by no means a hard leftist either, used to self-describe as a libertarian back when that meant what it sounds like it means. ... Then I realized that tech is full of nerds who (like me) got picked on in school, and that wound makes "you are aCkTuAllY a member of a cognitive master race" a powerful hook. It's not unique to nerds -- all humans are vulnerable to this pattern. You see it in groups of people who have been mass-abused through genocide or persecution for instance.
(3) A small number of people in tech have gotten rich to Gilded Age levels, and that burns in what I think is a stagflationary environment (we aren't calling it that, but for the "regular economy" we are basically in stagflation). If everyone was doing well and things like housing were affordable, I don't think people would care as much. I know personally I don't care if there are quintillinoaires out there somewhere as long as I am doing well and I can pursue my dreams... but if I'm not, it creates emotions of envy and hostility. This is natural hard-wired brain stem stuff.
Those are all rational reasons IMO and they all make sense.
I think the AI backlash builds mostly on #3, since AI threatens a lot of jobs in a stressed economic environment. The environmental stuff around AI (data center power etc.) is mostly exaggerated (except water in some areas), but its prevalence is driven by the fact that people want to find something to hate about this industry.
As evidence I submit the fact that artists, in my experience, are the most visceral AI haters. I get it. I do not believe AI is a threat to "true art." Not at all. But it is absolutely decimating the boring "potboiler" work artists used to use to make a living while they worked on the former, and it's always been brutally hard to make a living as an artist. AI also threatens programmers, but in that case we're talking maybe being knocked down from upper middle class to middle class not from lower middle class to bankruptcy.
(Total tangent -- I ran some numbers. If you telework 1-2 days a week, depending on your commute, you more than make up for using something like Claude Code heavily all day long. Same goes for skipping that DoorDash order. Cars use insane amounts of power if you really look, much more than data centers on an amortized per-user basis.)
+1 especially on (2). In that sense the article being from 2023 is itself interesting as a document of change. The article mentioned no one cared about Bezos for example, but with Data Centers wreaking havoc on communities with energy prices, water supply and noise while he takes over Venice, suddenly it was in people's backyards and turns out they do care.
On (1) I do like "Annoyance Economy" as an extension of that (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/12/business/annoyance-econom...)
I think you've got good points. With respect to #3 I think there's a general problem with concentration of capital and general "hoarding".
One example. Berkshire Hathaway has $400 billion dollars in the bank that they can't invest because they need high returns. So the capital is locked up. (The banks who hold the funds are restricted in what they can invest in).
Multiply this by loads of other companies. Add in funds stashed in tax havens. And just plain individual savings of people terrified about being poor in their old age.
My point is that the rich problem is not restricted to tech. Although it is quite visible
I'm not sure that's really true. The banks that hold Berkshire's money don't just stick it in a vault, they lend it out to people who want to finance a home or car or to businesses that use the money to grow.
I need to qualify my "I don't care if there are quadrillionaires" comment.
In theory, all other things aside, it is true. I mean, look up at the stars. For all I know there are functionally immortal super-minds out there who have not known pain for millions of years. Their existence is not a problem for me.
But "we live in a society," and unfortunately other peoples' extreme wealth can cause problems for me.
One is by bidding up assets. The super-rich park their money. Parked money goes into things like PE. PE can't find enough stuff to do with it, so they do shit like buy up housing and hold it off the market to profit from real estate appreciation. That makes it harder for me to find a good place to live. That's just one example.
I actually coined a term for the above: financial pollution. Financial pollution is any time someone else's money being invested does harm rather than helps, usually by driving up asset prices, massively distorting a market, or being invested in the creation of rent-seeking schemes. A classic example of financial pollution would be the real estate market in cities that allow a lot of overseas investors to park money in real estate.
Financial pollution is the opposite of productive investment that does things like creates jobs and builds things.
Another is that extreme wealth distorts politics. One of the libertarian things I like in theory is the idea of separation of economy and state, but in practice that's a brutally hard thing to achieve... much harder than separation of church and state. It is true from a social contract and legal point of view that money is not the same as physical coercion, and the state has a monopoly on the latter, but if you have loads of money you can buy the people who run the state and therefore obtain direct access to physical coercion. That's the problem. The super-rich can buy the government and then use force to maintain their status or pursue their own personal cultural, religious, or national peeves and hobby horses.
A handful of sociopath CEOs get way too much press exposure and make themselves into the worst possible mascots for the industry.
Name an industry anyone likes, aside from the money they might be making off it. They're all now hated for the same reasons, caused by the same, scarily small, group of people.
I don't think we, as common engineers, can absolve ourselves of all blame. For a time we were in incredible demand and all we've made of it is: some people earned enough to retire early, buy nice cars, or start their own business.
But that demand could have been turned into real power. Now it's too late.
Some of us even pledged to work ethically and practice integrity. Not sure what the original english version is. Found this online:
https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation...
Restaurants, gyms, cinemas, Hollywood, sports leagues, book publishing, amazon.
People will have some criticisms of each of these but the average person probably appreciates them more than dislikes them.
Hairdressing/beauticians
In the words of Hank Hill, "some people are meant to go to college, and some people are meant to go to beauty school."
Kindergartens
Nobody enjoys paying for one though.
I mean sure... but I vote for education tax levies whenever they come up and choose to live somewhere where they pass. I wouldn't call my emotions about it negative.
Is this a sarcasm? I hate them trying to upsell their stuff or lie about the products(almost all of the product marketing in beauty industry is a lie) or oversell their services.
If I were to guess, I think what you mean interacting with them not the money extraction part?
I'd say farming. Not agriculture in general, Monsanto is one of the most hated companies, so is John Deere, and farmers hate them too, but the ones working on the field, preferably crops over livestock.
I think that farmers are somehow immune despite having their fair share of evil because we all understand that without them, we would all die.
Space exploration.
Tons of people believe it's a waste of money though (I disagree).
I think that's true of NASA. However, I've got a pretty negative view of SpaceX due to the whole "owned by a Nazi thing".
Hahem, Wernher von Braun... What is it with nazis and rockets anyway?
And yet all this power in the hands of the very few are only there because the rest of us don't know any better than coordinating for their benefit rather than coordinating in any other way.
The problem is capitalism and the injustices it creates. The hated industries are just symptoms.
The problem isn't capitalism, well it's not JUST capitalism. If you give any group of individuals that level of wealth control, the same pattern repeats. They can be shareholders, board directors, or commissars or general secretaries of the people's party, a prince or a duke, or the first citizen.
It doesn't matter, all you need to replicate the same problems is concentration of wealth and power and the ability to direct it.
Indeed. It's just that capitalism produces immense concentrations of wealth as a core feature of the system.
To the extent that people hate tech, it's because:
1. Tech is our "new money". New money is always hated, by every generation
2. Tech represents change and the human animal dislikes change. Most people are okay with everything that exists when they turn 25 and dislike everything that appears after
3. Tech represents capitalism in a pure form. Creative destruction reigns; companies and apps can rise and fall overnight. Ways of life are precarious and the constant churn bothers people
All three really come down to people disliking change. Instead of hating/fearinf change and dynamism, people should look inward. Establish a routine. Exercise. Garden. Read. Cook. It's more within your power than ever before to decide what you like and pursue it at your own pace. But don't expect the external world to meet your desire for stasis.
> Most people outside the tech industry don’t care
This is and always will be incorrect and just the go-to excuse and/or justification. People do care but their brains are too muddy from stress, lies, ambiguous information and the lack of time to separate truth from campaigns/propaganda/proprietary agendas.
This can be interpreted as people not actively caring, as in the infamous "nobody cares" and "nobody can do anything about that anyway" but it's actually passive carelessness that has it's origin in a conspiratorial kind of treatment of lower classes by upper classes. But that's boring.
What's exciting is that it holds true upwards. Top 10% earners "don't care" if they "loose" 50000 dollars due to fraud by people "above their pay grade".
Hop, hop, hop ... people hate the tech industry because they somewhat expect that skilled and/or smart people with resources, opportunity and time do things the right way ... because they can, because they say "we can" and "we will" and "the people" a lot in various ways.
It causes at least a little nausea to suddenly realize that young or middle aged or seasoned engineers and business people behave like aging placeholder representatives that were picked because they are "representative enough".
This, of course, partially stems from several cognitive fallacies about the things that evolution and expertise seem to imply but don't.
In the end, it's not hate but recurring disillusionment and disappointment ... that the tech industry is no better than 13 year old drug dealers getting the teens next door hooked on punched bullshit or violent pimps and malpracticing doctors.
"It's a shame, really."
That said, the tech industry is doing it's job and delivers and it's human nature to expect "more" from capable people as well as to be disappointed when they don't--especially when patterns of malicious intent emerge and become systematic and systemic ... which has been halpening over and over again ...