
The Epic Fail of the Tech Elites - scarmig
http://bryanappleyard.com/the-epic-fail-of-the-tech-elites/
======
squozzer
"internet began as a collective enterprise, entirely created by public money —
the defence establishment in America and assorted individual"

My three years as a soldier in the US Army taught me that the U.S. defense
establishment is more like Ayn Rand - right-wing, brutally elitist, and
certainly not friendly to altruism - than the commenter would have us believe.

So maybe the Internet's founding assumption - as a decentralized
communications system - isn't so out of step with what Google and others have
done, or contemplate doing, with it.

~~~
hackuser
What are all those soldiers risking their lives for?

A few considerations:

1) The Internet's first phase was funded with other people's money, fellow
American citizens.

2) Later phases were in large part built by people who wanted to benefit
society; they gave away their work for free, and facilitated future innovators
by making it open source. How much of the tech industry's fortunes are built
on those foundations? Think through all the technology stacks.

3) Much of the society, civilization and economy on which their business
dreams depend is the work of people who strove to improve our world without
seeking payment for it. The laws, the norms, the schools that educate their
employees, the economy that provides paying customers, the roads, the Golden
Gate Bridge, the parks, the security, the liberty, the science, the
philosophy, the political leaders, the healthcare, the stability, etc. etc.

Anyone who says they are self-made and therefore owes nothing to others or to
society is either not very smart or not thinking (or insincere).

EDIT: Added first line, a more direct response

~~~
squozzer
Good points. I will do my best to answer. Generally, almost everyone involved
in your points was compensated to do something, even if it wasn't the work
that became the Internet stack, or if compensation was not their primary goal.

My point was actually rather minor - that the military does not function as a
top-to-bottom altruistic organization. You went meta and made some good points
about society in general. Please indulge my meta trip because I think it might
illustrate why Google et al have the "successionist" impulses of which they
have been accused.

A principle of justice we seem to accept nowadays without too much question is
that one shouldn't have to be bound to an accident of birth - e.g. Racial
discrimation. Then why should someone be bound to the accident of being born
American? A plausible argument there is that the success of something such as
Google might be impossible for a non-American company.

Neither argument seems eminently provable, but maybe more important questions
might be whether one can choose to whom one might share the fruits of one's
labors and how much one should share.

For example, the Christian Church had a nominal demand of 10%. Certainly that
was a lower limit but at least it was publicly known. Modern society doesn't
seem to care for such clarity - as best I can determine, the cut seems to be
"as much as we want", which is probably a harsh interpretation, given the
complexities of our political and fiscal systems.

A way to rephrase the who question is - "assuming I have to share my fruits
with others, why must it be with the country of my birth? Why can't I pick
someone else? Why can't I pick myself?" This isn't an argument from left
field, it's not too far from the position of the USA c. 1776, though the
Declaration seemed to dwell on the injustices of the British Empire more than
on the right to choose one's master.

------
dlu
There's a lot of ranting, but very little substance. Save yourself the trouble
from reading it.

It reminds me a bit of an anti-Atlas Shrugged

------
AndrewKemendo
The author is swimming upstream.

I fully expect there to be an "Dutch East India company" 2.0 by 2050.

Economic producers have always been political leaders, but they were always
able to be restrained by the state. Now with a globalized economy there is
nothing stopping a large enough company from hopping states - especially ones
with less wealth than the company. There has not been a company as large as
"Standard Oil" since true globalization has become the norm. Once there is,
all bets are off.

Apple for example could easily purchase any number of defense contractors/arms
manufacturers around the world and compete with basically any but the nuclear
nation states in terms of defense - and probably handily beat all in the
"cyber" domain.

Don't even get me started on when robotic ground forces become capable of
holding territory (not speaking of AGI/AI).

~~~
rl3
I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power
and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. Separation as
radical as you describe is unlikely due to the force each exerts over the
other.

In other words, no way would the US government let Apple play nation state or
otherwise shift the bulk of its loyalty elsewhere.

That said, the notion of Elysium-style humanoid robots resolving modern
regional conflicts on behalf of Apple is an appealing one. No longer would
violent extremists have to suffer the indignity of being put down by
conventional means. Instead, they would have the priviledge of being destroyed
by the pinnacle of sleek, elegant industrial design.

As far as AGI, if done properly it may resolve such things peacefully. Sadly,
that would mean no robotic Apple armies.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power
and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit._

That's true until it isn't. qed

It also assumes the company is a U.S. company - implicit in my statement I
concede - not necessarily the case.

I can see a situation in which the company and the USG have different
interests, but the company has enough power that there is little the USG could
do to it without massive loss in legitimacy.

For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG
can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. That
would be by far the largest company in the world and would have the resources
to raise whatever kind of military it chose with the requisite manufacturing
and logistics imbedded.

I don't see that particular chain of events, because it would probably not be
in the long term interest of either but there is likely a scenario in which it
makes sense.

~~~
rl3
> _For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The
> USG can 't do shit without either and together no government could take it
> on._

A large percentage of Lockheed Martin employees hold high-level security
clearances. This effectively cements their loyalty to USG and by extension the
company's as well.

My point was that, barring some sort of stereotypical dystopian scenario where
large conglomerates literally _are_ the state, governments will, at least in a
foreign policy sense, continue to serve as a legitimate front for corporate
interests, and a vessel through which corporate power is channeled.

------
j_baker
What exactly is the author's point? It just reads like a collection of gripes
about tech companies. And besides that, I don't see any evidence that Google
is building a "Bay View" stateless walled city.

~~~
jsprogrammer
I think he was talking about this:
[http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/07/11/google-
hi...](http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/07/11/google-hits-pause-
on-bayview.html?page=all)

Unsure of current status though.

------
scarmig
"Also, unlike Silicon Valley, the Stasi was regulated."

~~~
squozzer
By whom? One could argue they had the DDR's elite in their pocket.

------
cgh
This is a review of what sounds like a hysterically paranoid book. Elon Musk
plans to build a secessionist "clever colony" on Mars to escape the heavy hand
of the government? 3-D printing will never happen because of the "Bond
villains" who run the internet? Also, apparently hardly anyone in SV reads but
if they do, it's Ayn Rand for sure.

How does stuff like this even get published? It's just loony.

~~~
btian
People can publish whatever they want (with very few exceptions) on the
Internet.

------
JoeAltmaier
Sour grapes. Could be titled "People with money decide how to spend it, and
I'm sad to be left out"

~~~
stcredzero
_" People with money decide how to spend it..."_

Since when is it not valid to analyze how people with money spend it? History
teaches us that we should look out for the moment when the powers that be in
any social order stop investing in the social order and become mostly
extractive.

The desire of elites to separate themselves from the masses is a general
symptom of systemic failure. (Not that I'm against libertarianism -- I believe
they are correct about being judged as individuals -- but if your answer is
semantically equivalent to, "because no one's let libertarianism prevail yet,"
then I'm going to reply, "evidence?")

~~~
HashHishBang
Oh come on now. You can't just cut a sentence in half then analyze just that
part. Especially when the entire comment was only 2 sentences.

Not to mention that it is very much debatable if any actual analysis was
performed for this article. Admittedly I bailed after the 4th or 5th paragraph
of entirely unsubstantiated rambling, but I digress.

~~~
stcredzero
_You can 't just cut a sentence in half then analyze just that part._

No one's analyzing anything here, and no one needs to have for the purpose of
my statement. The apparent assertion that I'm countering is that there's no
point to "complaining" about how rich people spend their money: this is
demonstrably false. There's a ton of examples both historically and in the
current world. Whether or not there is any analysis in the comment, the op, or
the book being referenced is peripheral to the point.

------
rainwolf
The internet is indeed not the answer, 42 is.

