In this case, please eschew racebait.
Well let's see, American capitalist oligarchy has a deep root in the defeat of Reconstruction, specifically the fact that the planter class was not liquidated and its land was not redistributed - because of the continued insistence on white superiority and political domination.
Technocracy is similar, it's a manifestation of the fear of radical democracy and the notion that people are incapable of self-government, typically expressed in racialized (white man's burden, etc) form. It's very easy to see that line worming through the past few hundred years of history if you actually try.
I don't know why people so willingly bury their heads in the sand sometimes...
You proceeded, just now, to double-down and refuse to hear any more of it. In point of fact, you're not "aware of what they're peddling" because you're demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the article to those of us who actually read it, and you seem proud to do so after you've been called out for it.
That's the definition of burying your head in the sand. Hell, your reaction to my comment is basically you trying to wiggle all the way down so that you're buried up to the waist. But hey, you do you. Ignorance is bliss, and such.
For anyone wondering, the paragraph in question is: "It wasn’t just the spaces that were homogenous, but also the customers, Gonzalez observed: “If you go into the cafes, they’re predominantly white. But [Kloof Street] is historically a neighbourhood for people of colour.” Only certain types of people were encouraged to feel comfortable in the zone of AirSpace, and others were actively filtered out. It required money and a certain fluency for someone to be comfortable with the characteristic act of plunking down a laptop on one of the generic cafes’ broad tables and sitting there for hours, akin to learning the unspoken etiquette of a cocktail bar in a luxury hotel. The AirSpace cafes 'are oppressive, in the sense that they are exclusive and expensive', Gonzalez said. When whiteness and wealth are posed as the norm, a kind of force field of aesthetics and ideology keeps out anyone who does not fit the template." No support is given for any of the gross generalizations made, and they go unchallenged by the journalist. Does this lend credence to the rest of the article?
Edit: On that last point - by all means, disagree with the point the person they're interviewing is making regarding race, but don't ignorantly assume that the rest of the piece, and the whole point of the article, is now entirely about race and refuse to hear anything else about it. It's not fair to gripe about it not talking about how "it's an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy" when you put the thing down right before it spent a lot of time doing just that. You don't walk out of a movie theater right before the climax and then complain about how the film didn't resolve anything, do you?
Edit 2: It's interesting to go back and read the rest of the comments here now that this post has been up for a while. Most people on HN seem to be discussing points around the concept you wanted discussed, but your comment is the only one griping about race.
Edit: And sorry about all the edits - bad habit!
Not saying I agree with the article or anyone in this thread,(though after reading the excerpt the parent is upset about I think I do agree with the the article) just that this has become rather common and predictable. Is this what people mean when they talk about white fragility? I dont know.
Look again for other keywords, "sameness", "homegen"-suffixes.
E.g. The summary > coffee shops are physical filtering algorithms, too: they sort people based on their preferences, quietly attracting a particular crowd and repelling others
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.