Technology

59622 readers

5334 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

402

Why are so many leaders in tech evil? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

314 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I remember when I was growing up, tech industry has so many people that were admirable, and you wanted to aspire to be in life. Bill Gates, founders of Google Larry Page, Sergey brin, Steve Jobs (wasn't perfect but on a surface level, he was still at least a pretty decent guy), basically everyone involved in gaming from Xbox to PlayStation and so on, Tom from MySpace... So many admirable people who were actually really great....

Now, people are just trash. Look at Mark Zuckerberg who leads Facebook. Dude is a lizard man, anytime you think he has shown some character growth he does something truly horrible and illegal that he should be thrown in prison for. For example, he's been buying up properties in Hawaii and basically stealing them from the locals. He's basically committing human rights violations by violating the culture of Hawaiian natives and their land deeds that are passed down from generation to generation. He has been systematically stealing them and building a wall on Hawaii, basically a f*cking colonizer. That's what the guy is. I thought he was a good upstanding person until I learned all these things about him

Current CEO of Google is peak dirtbag. Dude has no interest in the company or it's success at all, his only concern is patting his pockets while he is there as CEO, and appeasing the shareholders. He has zero interest in helping or making anyone's life pleasant at the company. Truly a dirtbag in every way.

Current CEO of Home Depot, which I now consider a tech company because they have moved out of retail and into the online space and they are rapidly restructuring their entire business around online sales, that dude is a total piece of work conservative racist. I remember working for this company, This dude's entire focus is eliminating as many people as feasibly possible from working in the store, making their life living heck, does not see people as human beings at all. Just wants to eliminate anyone and everyone they possibly can, think they are a slave labor force

Elon musk, we all know about him, don't need to really say much. Every time you think he's doing something good for society, he proves you wrong And does the worst thing he can possibly do in that situation. It's like he's specifically trying to make the world the worst place possible everyday

Like, damn. What the heck happened to the world? You know? I thought the tech industry was supposed to be filled with these brilliant genius people who are really good for the world...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, for me too. Because I love practically everything he says when it comes to software.

"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

In the interest of fairness, he did claim to have changed his mind on some of this, although that only happened 2 days after his job became on the line after making strange comments about Epstein/Epstein clients/Epstein victims, particularly in presenting Epstein's underage sex workers as being willing.

For me, suddenly having a change of heart on a decades-held (and publicly-championed) opinion, only to suddenly change your mind the second it threatens your job seems a bit too convenient, so I'm unwilling to believe it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Holy shit...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

as long as no one is coerced

Well, the opinion that a child can consent is technically acceptable, because the line at 12,13,14,16,18,21 years is arbitrarily drawn which is why it differs in various countries.

But in practice he should have used common sense and at least drawn his own line.

“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”

That's scary, but I'm not sure how really wrong he is. The issue is again with child's consent being less certain, affected more easily by various distractions.

so I’m unwilling to believe it.

So am I, the question is whether he has internal consistency or not in his views. If yes, it's still better than, well, just being a jerk and proud of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, the opinion that a child can consent is technically acceptable, because the line at 12,13,14,16,18,21 years is arbitrarily drawn which is why it differs in various countries.

But in practice he should have used common sense and at least drawn his own line.

This charitable interpretation doesn't make sense when you remember that he also says it's a shame people can't have sex with animals/their family pets. They definitely cannot consent, even if you argue that a 12 year old could (which I'd also disagree with).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Well, a cat is what, equivalent to an 8yo in terms of intelligence? My intention is to be charitable with interpretations. It makes arguments better.

even if you argue that a 12 year old could (which I’d also disagree with).

I don't, but I think in Iceland age of consent is 13 and in some Russian regions 14 in certain situations (generally 16). Talking about laws.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would say it’s not a sincere change. It’s groupthink.

Well the skit keeps getting smaller and smaller

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You think being against having sex with infants is "groupthink" (i.e. a group pressuring individuals into having – or expressing – an irrational or dysfunctional view)?

I don't think that's true. I'm against raping children because it's wrong.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

That isn't what I said at all. It's weird that you would come to that conclusion. What I clearly said is his change is just repeating what he was told to say. I don't think his views changed, he is just repeating what people want to hear.