[Endama]

This article touches on an idea that I think many in the tech industry (myself included) continue to be myopic about: as disruptors we are held responsible for the negative social outcomes that we bestow upon society. I think many (not all) of us who work in software believe that the innovations we unleash, in-and-of themselves, make up for nearly any negative externality caused as consequence. We have brought services or experiences that have made life more convenient, faster, more accessible, etc.; that should be more than sufficient to legitimize our existence and effort.

Inside this framework, the driving factor is what Wired calls "techno-darwinism" the idea that software companies are "still standing post-disruption must have survived because they were the fittest". If you talk to people in SV, especially after the depression, the stereotype was that every startup was about to "change the world by becoming the [X] for [Y]" (Uber for cookies, AirBNB for laundry, etc.)

However, the outside world looks at us with disdain: they don't view our motivations as a desire for simple innovation or creativity, but outright greed and power. The folks that we have disrupted are often those who do not have the means to convert their labor to new industries; even when they do, those industries then get disrupted by some new actor.

Tech workers also have, stereotypically, been disdainful of government: it's too slow, too compromised/corrupt, too inefficient. However, engagement with the polity is the main vehicle by which the poor and disenfranchised are are able to find some kind of recourse for their lives, either by the ballot box or the ammo box.

I've been telling my non-tech friends recently that the great sin of our industry is not greed, its naivety and hubris.

[chiefalchemist]

> I've been telling my non-tech friends recently that the great sin of our industry is not greed, its naivety and hubris."

Close. But I would say it's ultimately a lack of empathy that is doing the most damage. It manifests itself in so many (negative) ways. It doesn't have to be this way. But that's the irony of lacking empathy.

[timoth3y]

> This article touches on an idea that I think many in the tech industry (myself included) continue to be myopic about: as disruptors we are held responsible for the negative social outcomes that we bestow upon society.

I think that's fair. I mean, since we get credit for the positive social outcomes, we should accept that we'll be blamed for the negative ones.

[malvosenior]

> However, the outside world looks at us with disdain

The only people that view the tech industry with disdain are journalists and old media.

Regular people happily use their iPhones, Facebook, Uber, AirBnB...

Just because a lot of ink is spilled trying to keep outdated media models alive, it doesn't mean the general population feels this way. The success of all of these services is proof enough that people are not bothered.

[borkt]

Yeah, they are too busy being addicted to candy crush without realizing that was precisely the intention. My wife, who is not an engineer (she works in applied science) is disgusted with how the technologies have been used to take advantage of the general public. She hates how airbnb has caused a town we wanted to live in to now lie around 24% of homes unoccupied outside of summer while housing prices continue to rise because Airbnb has made it a better value to keep houses away from long term rentals. You are being incredibly naive to even have a catogory called regular people. I am an engineer who builds infrastructure and manages projects each day. I can code but I am not a "software engineer". I am baffled how people at google, facebook, and the like who are funded by ad revene (from ads no one really clicks on or views) can sleep at night knowing how their products have caused so much harm.

[rchaud]

> Regular people happily use their iPhones, Facebook, Uber, AirBnB...

So when Uber circumvented the law to allow anybody to become a taxi driver, thereby hurting drivers who played by the rules, and the media reports on that, they can be safely ignored because they didn't interview a happy user of the app?

Regular people happily use non-biodegradable plastic bags. Maybe the old media should hold off on reporting on its consequences until the oceans have been completely liberated of marine life.

[Endama]

When it comes to the services/products, I agree with you, the general population certainly thinks they are great. However, how often have you heard of tech workers as being a positive thing for a city? How many times in TV shows / movies are tech workers seen as a boon? (e.g. Silicon Valley, Black Mirror, Searching) I'm not saying that this _necessarily_ means that literally everyone feels disdain towards the tech industry across all slices of society, I am arguing that the banner of disruption of being a good thing by definition, is misguided.