I absolutely feel this. I quit my job at Microsoft because they were too complicit with Israel's crimes against humanity (posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925777). That left me looking for a job and I have one now, with a startup I like a lot and hasn't done anything unethical to the best of my knowledge. The investors have though. Most of the VC community is straight up fascist/supremacist/genocidal... our industry is sick and while no doubt there was always this underpinning (I just didn't see it or realize my own complicity), it feels like it's ratcheted up a lot in the last 5 or so years.
For the record I am with you and OP in the sense that I personally would struggle with such proximity. But the reality is that even if you do what I did and give up quite a bit of salary in exchange for something so mundane as the same work in a public university-run health system, you can still often follow the money to some ugly places that are not as far away as you'd like. Regarding startups, the ones like yours are probably the best one can realistically hope for, ideological inclinations of the founders aside
I totally agree with you. The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism? I was historically not anti-capitalist but it's hard not to lean in that direction now. I feel like the issue is somehow bigger than even that though. If we were living under communism, the same people would probably be in charge. There's something about consolidation and centralization of power and access to resources being fungible through ideologies that makes this possible. Maybe it's the existence of "states" that is the problem (i.e. a monopoly on violence).
I sure have been thinking a lot about this recently as Gaza was the ultimate manifestation of where this can go. I actually think there's a movement to bring that type of violence to places like the US. Flock and fascism are steps in that direction imo.
Congrats on rediscovering Anarchism from first principles. Hierarchy begets hierarchy. As long you have a society where some people can coerce others into acting for the master's benefit and against their own, you end up on a ratchet. Power accumulates, leading to more coercion, leading to more power. Such systems select for individuals who are the most feverishly driven to amass power at any cost and put them in the position to seize more.
> The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism?
The underlying problem is that power and wealth causes people to believe themselves above others to a degree proportional to how much more power and wealth they have relative to those considered below them.
Unfortunately, we've seen unprecedented concentration of wealth occur, so it should come as no surprise that those who are running things exhibit very little humanity towards others.
The world separates cleanly into those of us who could never knowingly and freely take any money from any fascist and those who would point out the generous meal plan bestowed upon the camp guards.
I have never been in the situation of knowingly taking salary from any fascist and would never tolerate it. I've left jobs I needed over this. My "walking away" was more about wanting to work on stuff in my day job that felt somewhat more worthwhile and tangibly useful to humanity
The question is, where are you going to go? Finance? Farming, Logistics? Writing/Literature/Philosophy? Big Pharma? All those people are funneling funds to people you find utterly objectionable. You'll find that every career/industry is probably proportionally representative of people who share your values as those who don't. Tech is is only so visible to you because you are so immersed in it. Care less about "Tech" and more about your family/community/friends.
I'm slowly making my way out of tech and going into food preparation for the poor. I previously thought working at one of these companies to extract as much money from them as possible so that I could provide as many meals to the poor as possible using that money was the best thing to do. I'm less sure about that today.
I'm sure that some of the people I work with at food banks are homophobic because they hold a particularly conservative version of their faith. I'm also sure that they aren't directly working with the government to cause material harm to marginalized people, which I cannot say about my current employer.
You can disagree with someone while still treating them the best they can. A Doctor shouldn't leave a patient mid-surgery simply because he found out he's an Anti-Vaxxer or votes a certain way.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
A doctor refusing to heal a bigot is not even remotely the same thing as refusing to work for a megacorp because of their direct involvement in military action that kills children.
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
I think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.
I felt this article, minus the conclusion, perhaps. There is something profoundly rotten going on. Used to be that you had to keep the quiet part to yourself. Now you can espouse white supremacy and enjoy broad social capital. Everyone at the top appears to have agreed that, yeah, fascism-lite is actually kind of convenient from a capitalist perspective, and they’re enabling anyone who helps spread that ethos. Meanwhile half of our industry is at best apathetic.
‘You can use Omarchy without caring about DHH’s politics,’ explained one of my colleagues. And he’s kind of right. Death of the author – that sort of thing. But using it also lends credibility to the maker, who can point at their project’s popularity as an indirect sign of vindication of their ideology. Hence, as I see it, the only morally right choice is not to use it.
Regarding the conclusion, I wouldn’t leave. I see it as my duty to push back, even if the effect is woefully modest. We need to start reminding each other again that, no, this isn’t okay. In the office and online.
Seems like an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with, as if "tech" were a monolith. Just don't work for the companies that cross your self-stated lines in the sand:
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
I think there's a systemic problem with the investors though. It's a smallish pool of very much monocultured venture capitalists that's very easy to get blacklisted from if you don't adhere to their ideology. It's not as simple as just finding a job somewhere else, when the financing is controlled by a small group of people who are extremely vindictive.
Founders swim in the incentive pool of VCs, who swim in the incentive pool of LPs, who swim in the incentive pool of capital-c Capital.
When you architect your industry around "number goes up" as the number one priority that everybody agrees on, and then add multiple layers of abstraction separating capital from labor, you end up with the Ouroboros-style arrangement we have today. The head forgets that it is the tail, and vice-versa.
I think we used to (in, idk, the era of the Roosevelts) have a very different leadership class, with competing interests that were more complicated than "number go up", even in the corporate class.
Since the Kennedy assassination(s!) in the US, I don't think we've had a single leader (corporate or political) who has publicly and sincerely questioned that narrative. At this point we struggle to imagine a civilization with alternative priorities, but history is littered with examples.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
I grew up believing that capitalism somehow separates business from government, with each operating independently. Same with separation of church and state. Not sure what to think of things now.
I think the problem, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small... which inevitably leads to corporations virtually running parts of the government, unless you come up with a way to explicitly prevent that. But the people in power who want to remain in power would never go along with that.
I think it's pretty clear that the 'small' government preference of conservative politicians is a myth. They want to make the parts of government they don't like small and the parts they do like quite large. None of that takes away from your point, but I just wanted to deflate the meme slightly.
The problem is, if the government is small, then corporations are more powerful and can run over it and do whatever they want. If government is large, then its a much juicier target for corporations to lobby and bribe to get what they want.
It comes down to culture and society. A democratically elected government should ideally be there to represent the interests of the masses as a way to counteract the inevitable power of the wealthy elite. But when those same wealthy elite spend decades and billions of dollars to brainwash the masses by owning all the media companies and influencing school curriculums and so on, I don't see how the masses stand a chance over the long term.
>, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small
No they don't, at least not anymore (if they ever really did.) They believe government shouldn't regulate business and shouldn't provide social welfare or invest in scientific research that doesn't align with their political ideology, but they absolutely believe in having a trillion dollar military industrial complex.
Those hypothetical "small government conservatives" are running up the Federal deficit at a breathtaking, unprecedented pace. What's actually going on is much simpler to explain as corruption.
Conservatives don't actually believe in "small governments": that's just another posture they take, like "states rights" or "protect the kids". Deficit increases much faster under Republicans, and Trump is no exception. They're funnelling money to government contractors through a bloated military whose sole purpose is spending tax payer dollars on expensive and useless toys, that can't even win a war against a theocracy that's been under sanctions for half a century.
That's how billionaires became so much richer under Trump, while the rest of the country goes to shit. And that's a common symptom of fascism: a merging of the State's and corporate interests.
I find it incredibly frustrating how effective conservative propaganda is even on non-conservatives. The "fiscal responsibility" and "small government" stuff are just examples of the many convenient statements they have with absolutely zero bearing on reality in how they legislate. So many liberals even believe conservatives used to "just want a slow and measured rate of change" and Trump is somehow different. All that has changed is the amount they feel comfortable saying out loud. They are dispensing with the euphemisms and saying what they really mean now.
Fascism is Capitalism's immune response. Under stress, whether real or imagined, the rich and thus powerful begin dismantling the very systems that made them that way, gambling that their existing positions of influence will ensure their own survival (whether economic or literal).
Capitalism only functions when you have people willing and able to buy your stuff, a state that protects fair dealings, and maintains a peaceful public order. It a luxury maintained by having a safe, stable society. Imagine trying to run a business in a world where the workers can just decide to cut you out of your investments, and then you have to hire PMCs to retake your factory, but then the PMCs renege on your contract and decide to run the business themselves. A society where you need to build your own roads, spread your own pro-business propaganda, and lack any recourse when your suppliers decide to take your money and run.
That's capitalism: owning capital attracts more capital, until eventually an all-powerful oligarchical class emerges that is then emboldened to dismantle the liberal democracy that built them, in order to secure their position at the top.
Hitler was sponsored by the industrialists of its nation. So was Mussolini. So is Putin. So is Trump.
"Capitalism is incompatible with democracy" is the one lesson I hope people finally learn by the end of this century.
I used to think that sexual preferences were decoupled from business, capitalism, and government but gestures around recent events seem to have proven otherwise.
I suspect you'd have fewer downvotes if you had simply said "everything is political" instead of bringing up a contentious topic that isn't obviously related.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
One of the best freedoms out there is freedom of association.
I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose.
> If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.
Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.
But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
> Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
"Come out and say" something completely uncontroversial and universally accepted?
The idea that JK Rowling could be "forced" on this is a weird one. I haven't read a ton of her critics but I've never even encountered the idea of forcing her to do that.
How would that even be possible? So strange. The conservative idea of using government force to silence people could "force her, but the critics of JK Rowling only want to flex their freedom of association, not force her.
Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal...
And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East.
That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
Bit of a strawman here, particularly the last one. Find a single US administration in recent history that hasn't killed thousands in the middle east? I'll wait.
> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
I still don't understand how these people think they can achieve ultra right wing and unemployment through AI at the same time. Even Hitler didn't manage.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
You must have been living under a comfy rock the last few years since there are several communists - real ones, by their own say - in the running for positions in the "democratic" party. The coming elections will show whether they gain traction, if they do there is a real danger of communism forming in the USA.
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
OK, down-voter, be a man and tell me where you think I went wrong in my reasoning about the chances DSA-communists have in gaining a foothold or the danger of fascism gaining ground. Stop knee-jerking that down-vote button, tell us what you think - this is a discussion site after all, not a popularity contest or likes farm.
It's not complicated. The people in power in US are not hiding it. They want to dismatle democracy, take away peoples rights and freedoms. They are openly corrupted. They are laughing in your faces with hailing and nazy propaganda tactics.
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
Sorry, but people are calling anyone who disagrees with them nazis or fascists so frequently that it is hard to take seriously anymore?
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility
If you would like to contribute to the discussion then you can find one of the people called a fascist or white supremacist and contest the claim. Then someone can counter that claim, and dialogue can happen.
Why is this strawman such a common trope among certain walks of life? I have yet to encounter someone who actually considers everything they disagree with to be fascist.
I don't consider it a strawman. Do you understand what hyperbole is? When people say "everyone is X"... they very rarely actually mean the literal definition of everyone.
Words are not always used in a rigid black-and-white manner according to their definition... understanding and being able to deal with this, without getting angry or trying to "correct" people, is what makes for good social etiquette IMO.
Ok, then let's strip your original comment of its hyperbole:
> Why does "some of the things I disagree with are fascists" seem to be a common trope among certain walks of life?
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now, to make an actual argument: do you contest that a lot of leaders in tech are ideologically fascists or do you contest that this is an issue?
Racial essentialism, xenophobia and white supremacy are all fascist. Praising and supporting right-wing extremists is fascist. Believing in ethnic cleansing and that non-whites need to be forcibly removed is fascist. Believing all non-Christian religion needs to be banned is fascist. Equating "gypsies" to dogs is fascist.
When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
Obviously, you will disagree with my interpretation and the interpretation of many others, and I'm not interested in having that argument, because I know it will be futile. The point is that your original hyperbolic assertion that the author had no rationale for considering DHH to be fascist other than pure arbitrary spite is incorrect. They have a rationale, you just disagree with it.
So the author is just now, in 2026, getting where many conservatives in tech were in around 2018. Now, though, the author wants to occupy the moral high ground while tacitly suggesting Islam is swell. Good luck with all that.
If I had more time, I might elaborate on the fact that both the author and those he criticizes are children of the Enlightenment. I mention this, because it has a great deal of relevance. Neither Promethean Techno-Pelagianism on the one hand nor Socio-Voluntaristic Manichaeism on the other present a great vision of the good, whatever validity we can find in their criticisms.
