The world is an objectively worse place because of tech-bro oligarchs | Hacker News Reader

The world is an objectively worse place because of tech-bro oligarchs

irishexaminer.com

69 pointsstuaxo38 comments

This should not have been flagged.

This is you HN. If you want to get mad because you don't like what's in the mirror, that's on us/you.

This is mostly just a rant without any argument to support the headline. I am more or less aligned with the author but I don’t think it is inappropriate to flag it as unlikely to lead to good discussion here.

All of these words that I wish I could have put in the same order, but I can't because I'm not a good writer. Fully agree 100%. Just a man after my own heart. And like the article says, everything that I know about these yutzes has been against my will and I wish I could wipe my mind free of them.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx-WchSiIB7RlD96Gal6FriexbjzVJ2qf...

Not mentioned: gratitude that tech CEOs’ vapidity keeps journalists employed.

We need more of this kind of commentary, not less. It was this kind of commentary that killed Disco at the end of the 70s and brought in Punk and New Wave. That was an unequivocally good thing. My point is, we need reminders of what good character looks like so we can be better people. There is so little character among the tech bros, they are all such broken, empty people is some deep way. Perhaps that's what is necessary for such success, but we don't need to ape it or declare them somehow examples for our children. As perhaps future tech leaders, we should want to be better.

This is a top-tier professional roast. Loved reading it.

I'm bewildered how things changed so fast. Big Tech was conservative public enemy number 1 just a couple years ago. And vice-versa.

So now what? Will Democrats start cozying up to the oil oligarchs? Sounds ridiculous, but ... do they have a choice?

No, because Democrats tend to have principles.

..until proven inconvenient when exercising raw power.

Anyone want to renege on his word to pardon his son?

Let's not forget that the Hunter Biden prosecution was a vicious, lie-filled witch hunt from the start: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexander-smirnov-pleads-guilty...

Coupled with an inbound fascist administration that's howling for blood and revenge against the Democratic establishment, this (somewhat reluctantly) strikes me as a sensible reason to issue a pardon.

Let’s not forget that Hunter Biden is an adult man with free will and did in fact commit crimes. It might be sensible to pardon, but that outcome is opposite of what the president said he would do. It’s okay to point that out.

tbh i'll probably just forget both things.

Have you not seen Harris' campaign ads? They did a full 180 on immigration, gun rights to ponder to more conservative voters.

Those ads were so incongruent, they got featured on one of post-election "Daily Show" episodes.

Yeah, and she seems to have lost millions of Dem voters because of it. (Folks I follow on social media were complaining about this pivot.)

It's because everybody in big tech has a tesla, and it's a lot easier to change political ideologies than sell your car.

Traditional media billionaires made the world worse too. It's just power changing hands, without tech-bro we would have something-else-bro pooping on our heads as we always had. Let's not be naives.

Why do we need qualify every piece of tech journalism with a "Yeah but...the media..."

So change it to big-pharma-bros, big-four-bros (kpmg, delloite, ey, pwc), wall st-bros, big-three-bros (s&p, moody's, fitch), religion-bros... my point is that billionaries will always be around and there's nothing we can do.

Not reporting on them sure will help!

Also there are journalist owned outlets like 404 media that report on tech. The idea that it's all controlled by billionaires is just giving you the excuse you want to surrender with.

it's such false power though, the politicians don't realize we can regulate the shit out of big tech and reallocate the money to more noble causes and google and facebook and all the other "tech" companies that aren't doing much but sitting on monopolies will be just fine. They don't need 1/100th of the capital they have to provide the service they do to society.

First, huge general agreement. The cringe of these people has gone right off the charts since Trump demonstrated how to distract from real crimes by saying heinous shit.

Second, a couple tiny points:

1. "Musk speaks like a man who believes his own insane conspiratorial guff" because's he's a con artist. Speaking with confidence is core to the con; always has been.

2. Bryan isn't known for using "electric shocks" on his little Johnson. They're acoustic shocks; so put the TENS machine back in the closet.

Id say it’s tough to call elon musk a con artist. Many other names might apply but that one not so much.

The more he talks on subjects that people are actually knowledgeable on the more people realize he is a con artist. Looking at his recent paying for ranking on games just to get gamer cred shows.

I mean thats a majority of the population and most executives.

Con artist is possibly the most inaccurate title for him thats all. Clearly he has built and delivered multifold.

So if you do 1 thing correctly and use your popularity to con about other things that does not make you a con artist?

No. What con are you even trying to say here?

Bernie Madoff is a good example of a con artist - he promised you a return on your money but was engaged in a Ponzi scheme.

https://elonmusk.today/

He conned people with Fsd for years that was a con. He lied about funding for Tesla going private was a con. He has lied or bluffed for financial gain multiple times from what I can see is that not a con artist?

Oh you mean growing a company to the most selling cars per year car company on the planet amongst other companies - while under insane short pressure? Con artist is not that but thanks for your input.

ah no real argument so you can do the same like he does and wave it away yeah thanks.

one of THE biggest con-artists to ever live (but also maybe just a good salesman of vaporware…)

https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

No, thats not a con. Thats overselling.

and the difference is…? he is “overselling” 100+ forward P/E ratio conning people to pay $400+/share for a company worth about $54/share… con-job if there ever was one :)

I mean you sound exactly like the Tesla shorts back when Tesla was starting out.

You obviously have a position and you dislike him - which is understandable. He doesn't fall into a con artist category. Nothing you’ve said here is a con artist if it is even believed ti be accurate in the first place.

FSD took longer but it delivered. Thats not a con artist- thats development delays

I could not give two shits about him, I have a life and family to spend my time on, not worry or care about him. I am an investor though… and FSD not only did not deliver but it is downright funny to me thinking that it did…

https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

https://electrek.co/2025/01/13/elon-musk-misrepresents-data-...

It's a free world. If people want to go on Facebook (monthly active users 3bn) rather than the Irish Examiner (circulation 23,387) they can do so or visa versa.

> It's a free world.

Highly debatable, if not outright laughable.

> the Irish Examiner (circulation 23,387)

You're off by a lot there. The 23,387 figure is purely for print copies; and a daily figure as opposed to monthly.

Wiki states: ...the Examiner markets to advertisers on the basis of its print and online audience, stating in 2017 that "236,000 people read the Irish Examiner in print or online every day".

Tbh I don't even know why you brought circulation up; it has no bearing on the strength of the argument presented in tfa. Would it hold more weight if posted on Facebook??

Just really that people have a choice between tech bro media and old school forms and a lot, maybe the majority are choosing tech bro. Though personally I guess I am kind of forced onto their platforms to see what people I'm interested are up to - family on whatsapp, PG on x etc.

I have to say re this particular article and it's content I found the Rogan/Zuck interview rather good and this article's content like "Rogan’s podcast — where male brain cells go to die" and "Zuck avoided this fate by not having a personality" a bit smarmy and obnoxious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com