If you want another example, look no further than hacker news.
If you want another example, look no further than hacker news.
In that worldview I think it's the dark figures in smoke-filled rooms who are in charge of all policy, broken-incentive or not.
More seriously: in any system where broken incentives are [still] in place, isn't it typically those in power who are primarily responsible for that being so?
Which, for every demographic in the US besides white, straight Christian men, has often just been the self-evident truth.
The overarching policy here with broken incentives is the kind of relatively unrestricted capitalism which Silicon Valley would be loath to give up. Most of the attitudes listed in the article tie strongly into that: money is seen as defining worth, values that can’t be monetized or that inhibit profit are rejected, often vehemently, and so on.
If you’re inclined to dismiss a piece like this, it may be because you’re too enmeshed in at least some of the ideologies in question to recognize its accuracy.
> So, to the moderately powerful men who prop up and benefit from Silicon Valley’s ideology, and leave us the real work of fixing what it breaks...
Her analysis just isn’t very interesting. It’s merely a well-written rant.
[0] I am deliberately ignoring the fact that if we are being literal, these people most certainly do not have a personality disorder, unpalatable though their characters may be.