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…

  • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    lack of “social intelligence”. They mostly rose through the ranks because their technical (or business) skill. They never had to act for benefit of others to advanve

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    bill gates was like, one of the worst of the worst. Dude literally broke the law, and then settled to avoid paying for acquiring fees.

    They have never been good.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        yeah, it’s basically this kind of shit from every wealthy business man. Even the fabled Rockefeller was hated for the same reasons, dude controlled 80% of global/american oil refining and people still hated him, even though his product was the market leader.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            yeah, it’s pretty common for any super aggressive business sector, they just completely vore the entire market sector in hopes of gaining total control, shits weird.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              Monopoly is a super profitable and comfortable position, but it’s when capitalism fails.

              …wish I hadn’t looked up vore…

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Dude literally broke the law, and then settled to avoid paying for acquiring fees.

      That sounds really tame compared to nowadays.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        it’s tame, except we’re talking like, literally stealing a piece of software or it’s design blatantly, settling, and then acquiring the rights in the settlement for much cheaper than they would at market rates.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          It’s not his problem that they settled for so little though.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            he shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place, but that’s not the problem of the small business.

            I mean there are literally three options here, purchase it from the business legally. Which costs shit tons of money, or steal it. And then deal with it after the fact, which is what they did, and it saved MS lots of money, while probably fucking yeeting the small business.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              Well duh. I’m just saying it’s really tame compared to nowadays.

              Also I personally don’t really care too much about copyright.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    Tech is just the most visible industry right now. Look at any other major corporations and you’ll find the same.

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Bill Gates was a huge piece of shit in his heyday, rivalling the Zuckerberg and Musks of today, and Jobs was an abusive narcissist shitcunt on a surface level.

    Tom and Zuckerberg both came from the same time. Zuck was shit since day 1, today has nothing to do with it.

    I think you just have some very rose tinted glasses.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      It’s hard to beat ignoring doctors and not treating your very treatable form of cancer, then using your wealth to get a liver transplant and then dying anyway. Dude committed manslaughter because of his own arrogance.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      I think it’s easier to name the people who have been decent in tech. Woz seems like a decent guy.

      Ted Waite all in all was decent. Not perfect but decent.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          27 days ago

          Stallman is a notable figure in the industry but he was never the leader of a large tech company. That’s probably why he’s a decent guy

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            27 days ago

            He was a big defender of paedophilia, necrophilia, incest, and bestiality. He thinks people should have the right to fuck their pets or their children. Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

            Stallman is an incredible steward of FOSS, but he is not a decent guy overall.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                27 days ago

                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.

                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.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  26 days ago

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

                  Well the skit keeps getting smaller and smaller

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  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.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              26 days ago

              Let’s note that necrophilia with mutual agreement (pre-mortem, and same with cannibalism) and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended. Animals can’t consent, children can’t consent, so not that.

              Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

              That - yeah.

              But I guess it’s another sobering reminder of why celebrity worship is bad. I see way too many people try to bury or deny his scummy side, just because they worship him as a FOSS celebrity figure.

              Believing in discourses and narratives without understanding that they are never real is bad.

              You can believe only in what you see with your own eyes since inception and till death.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                26 days ago

                and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended.

                Why are you saying between adults, as if that’s what he said? He was talking about children. I even provided multiple examples of him saying so.

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            27 days ago

            The FSF isn’t exactly what you think of when you hear the words “large tech company”… but you could argue that in some ways it is one couldn’t you… 😁😛

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            27 days ago

            he was never the leader of a large tech company. That’s probably why he’s a decent guy

            I think you have that backwards.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Bill Gates was a huge piece of shit in his heyday, rivalling the Zuckerberg and Musks of today,

      Bill Gates was a ruthless businessman destroying competition but as far as I know he didn’t support fascists or facilitate pogroms.

      Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has done far more harm to our societies than whatever shady tactics Bill Gates used.

      • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        Gates and Jobs both are responsible for consumer based computing. Proprietary software lynched what should have been a global birth of inventive software engineers.

        The crap that Zuck shills had its groundwork laid by those two.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          Proprietary software lynched what should have been a global birth of inventive software engineers.

          That actually happened. Just wasn’t perpetuated after 1995 or something.

      • uzay@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        Not to take away from Zuckerberg, Musk, and the less-known people in tech like Thiel, but Bill Gates was and is a huge piece of shit who harmed more than just his competitors. Among other things he convinced the world that we need IP and patents for covid vaccines instead of sharing them freely, which alone cost countless lives around the world. I don’t even want to know what other ills his “philanthropy” has and will cause. https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-global-access-covid-vaccines

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Before Microsoft, programmers were treated like factory workers by HP and IBM and setup in large open floor rooms like a secretary pool from the 1960’s. Gates thought programmers were important and gave every programmer a private office.

      Gates did dirty tricks to competitors even to tiny ones they could have bought out (stacker). But he was never Musk’s level of evil.

    • Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Adding to that, Bill Gates put quite some effort into image building and mostly succeeded.

  • xyguy@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    My thought is that these people think that their smarter than everyone else therefore they are justified doing anything they do. On the other hand, anyone with a billion dollars got it by making a whole lot of other people poorer. And they ate neither actually geniuses nor benevolent in any other way.

    The Phillip Morris CEO makes money by hooking people onto something that isn’t good for them. Tech CEOs are very seldom any different. Anyone who says otherwise usually has a financial interest in making you believe them.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    I remember when I was growing up, tech industry has so many people that were admirable

    Perhaps you were too young to understand who these people were:

    • Bill Gates dominated the PC world with aggressive business tactics and vendor lock in.
    • Larry Ellison bought up his competitors and jack up prices on databsae products owning the industry for more than a decade.
    • Steve Jobs lied and cheated his investors, his family, and his closest friends to benefit himself.

    Tom was a good guy, but possibly because he took his fortune and left tech. There were very few admirable leaders.

    • mle@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Larry Ellisons Oracle gobbled up many great companies and open source projects and sucked the life out of them, such as Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice, MySQL to name just a few

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Larry Ellison bought up his competitors and jack up prices on databsae products owning the industry for more than a decade.

      It’s well known that ORACLE is an acronym for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

    • kfchan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Steve Jobs decided to kill himself by being an idiot.

      So…there was a redemption arc there.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          Yes but Steve Jobs also bought himself a pointless liver transplant that someone else didn’t get. One he would have never needed if he had listened to doctors instead of trying to treat a very treatable kind of cancer with a diet. So while he did the world a favor, he also took someone with him on the way out.

  • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Because being an industry leader is more about controlling people rather than whatever it is that your industry produces.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    The link below isn’t the fundamental reason, but I think it helps to explain the shift in mindset. With the best of intentions and a desire to innovate and help people live better…the ersartz movement became corrupted by conspicuous consumption and a “disruptor” capitalist mindset:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      And if not that, then the inverse applies: People who end up the wealthiest and most powerful do so by being the best at exploiting other people and systems.

      There’s a reason there are more and more sociopaths and narcissists the higher you get in a corporate structure, and its because such people truly do not care about the harm they cause, unless they get caught.

  • RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Capital demands growth. It doesn’t care how you do it. It doesn’t track or reward whether you did it by making the world better or by creating death squads and working with the CIA to kill thousands of people and overthrow a government that wanted to charge you taxes and limit the amount of land you could have.

    It’s been this way, and worse, for a long time. But bear in mind that Twitter gave us the ability to see how billionaires think. Modern media made them more accessible. They didn’t change, our knowledge of them did.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Businesses succeed by profiting. The most successful businesses of any time period are ones who maximise profits at all costs, including ethics.

    There are a lot of arguments about more ethical businesses being the most viable longterm, but that sort of variable isn’t considered when the big businesses calculate their next move.

    Almost none of the Tech Company leaders actually finished college, if somebody you know is calling them a genius then that person measures intelligence by profits. A very stupid person.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Because sociopathic tenancies are useful when on your way to the top. It lets you step on everyone else in your way and then do whatever you want without having to care about others.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Yep!

      Tech is absolutely a space where people who break the rules get rewarded. Every tech company I’ve worked at has had a situation where they turned the other cheek on laws. And if they broke it, the fine was just the cost of doing business.

      A example at my old job (with fake numbers), they broke laws in some EU countries. It took them like a decade to finally catch up with them. And the fine was like $8 million dollars. But during that law breaking, they made $100mil in sales, while also destroying the competition and solidifying they position in the marketplace, guaranteeing more profits for another decade.

      If they followed the law, they wouldn’t be this major player in the industry.

      And the job I worked at is one of thousands of companies that think like that.