Why are so many leaders in tech evil?

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.

Capitalism rewards psychopathy

when I was growing up

This is really the key. We're all stupid and unaware of how things work and the particular goings-ons when we're kids. There were plenty of shitty people running the tech giant companies back then, but we just didn't realize the extent of what was happening.

Edit: The evolution of social media also adds a lot to this. We are both more connected to each other and society, and therefore more aware of BS think it's pulled by corporations. Then, of course, you have folks like Elon Musk who seem to make a point of making sure everyone knows how big of a piece of shit they are, and how proud of it they are.

They were all evil shit back then... You were just innocent and information didn't travel as fast

Also, Jobs "pretty decent"? That asshole was Narciso reborn

Gates was always a dirtbag.

He is one of the main reasons proprietary software is so prevalent and predatory nowadays.

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.

sociopaths have a pretty big advantage in capitalist leadership positions over non-sociopaths. they are more likely to get there in the first place, and they will perform better.

Bill Gates was an evil piece of shit, that did many illegal things to secure Microsoft's software empire.

It was much easier to "hide" sit back then unless you were in the know in the industry.

That said I think because tech was such a young industry and innovating so quickly. Many geeks got a chance to run companies that took off. Nowadays it's Like every other industry with sociopaths in charge.

I remember when I was growing up,

You remember propaganda (when corporations do it, it's called "Public Relations").

That's what you remember. Now, thanks to the internet democratizign information somewhat, they don't just get to feed us their "public relations" anymore. Now people can counter that shit, and people see them for what they really are - parasites.

It's capitalism, baby. Welcome to the real world.

Normal well adjusted people get a few million dollars and call it a day. Only people with a mental problem get billions and keep trying to get more.

Bill Gates admirable? Did we grow up in the 90s in the same dimension? Him and Windows were the butt of almost every IT joke, and there was his whole thing of never doing anything original or innovative except gobbling up companies and tech who were. Then the court battles. Those were a pretty big thing, even as a teen I followed the progress of it on the news. Then holding the whole web back for almost a decade as we had to deal with the monopoly of IE.

Greed. A sane person will walk away from working once they have enough saved to comfortably retire.

$100 million can let you live comfortably forever, but there are plenty of people who want that much every year.

Those are the folks who become 'leaders.'

I remember when I was growing up

You can basically stop right there. You were young and naive, viewing the world through the rose colored glasses of youth.

You listed a bunch of people who were "good", but honestly, none of them were. You just weren't necessarily aware of how Bill Gates treated anyone who had anything he wanted, or what Steve Jobs did to his daughter.

Honestly, the lesson here is All CEOs Are Bad, it's just that some are only moderate psychopaths instead of ones that skin cats and then stuff them into mailboxes.

"I thought the tech industry was supposed to be filled with these brilliant genius people who are really good for the world…"

They are but as usual it's the WORKERS who are the good brilliant people, not the ownership class and 3 letter executive dirt bags. They're the same in EVERY industry. Owner/CEO ONLY cares about profit profit profit, fuck everyone and everything else.

Workers, they're a mixed bag as there are so many different people, but in the tech space they're generally intelligent "good" people.

You don't get to be a billionaire and a decent person. Choose 1.

When did you grow up that Gates has not been evil yet? All of the 90s was marked by Microsoft making home computing worse to create a monopoly. Fucking emails formatted in a way that's unreadable outside Windows, closed .doc format that became a de facto standard in offices and likely many other things I don't remember

You haven't named a decent person in your post.

The Google founders are simply more secretive in their lifestyles compared to Musk. They dropped the "Don't Be Evil" motto a long time ago.

It's not just tech, but leadership positions in general.

Short answer is that the traits you need to climb the ladder have significant overlap with the traits of legit psychopathy.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mind-of-the-manager/201304/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership

These people have always been bad. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Ford, all of them had their issues. The big difference between then and now is the information we have access to. These leaders are more or less forced to live a very public life. We can find all sorts of articles and investigative journalism reports about Elon actually having family money. And when you are rich enough to control the few newspapers, the stories are going to put you in a very good light.

Their job is to maximize shareholder profit. That is their only and one true job as CEOs. If you want a CEO that is not evil, look for companies that are not public even though they could be.

This phenomenon is not limited to tech company leaders.

It's a common problem with all large corporations leadership, and gets increasingly worse the larger that corporation becomes.

Evil people are less constrained by morality and more capable of doing what is necessary to climb hierarchies. This can happen in any organización, not just business.

Steve Jobs (wasn't perfect but on a surface level, he was still at least a pretty decent guy),

Very very incorrect. He was a complete garbage pail of a human being from the very beginning.

Behind the Bastards: Part One: The Terrible Secret of Steve Jobs https://omny.fm/shows/behind-the-bastards/part-one-the-terrible-secret-of-steve-jobs

You can look back to Lee Iacocca. The Ford Pintos caught on fire because he sat back at his desk and laughed at the engineers who wanted to add a safety bar back there, the car had to be 2000 dollars no matter what.

Then he was at Chrysler and pioneered the idea that CEOs could set their own bonuses. At the time it was a shocking idea, called unethical.

Now the personal tech world comes along....

You cant get that kind of money without being piece of shit humanbeing. You need to constantly look out for opportunities to exploit others and how could you even do that if you have any shred of empathy or decency. Not sure if they were like this from the beginning or if they became like this when they got enough money or if its influence from their family, but we will all suffer under their rule.

I don't know much about the other guys you named, but close friend of Jeffry Epstein, Bill Gates is a demon with good PR. A lot of his outreach consists of privatizing schools in Africa and America, testing vaccines on tribal girls in India without consent, and demanding Oxford sell their covid vaccine instead of releasing it free..

But if you google anything about Bill Gates medical activities, they get drowned out by puff pieces and fact checks about microchips in vaccines instead of the.

Narcicistic sociopaths are the best profile to boost profit. Even some of the "good guys" you listed as founders were some trashy pricks.

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

Mate, that's the curse of capitalism. Yeah the living standards have improved and all, but the balance of scale tips so much towards the evil doings of these executives and the guys at the top that it doesn't matter how much my living standard increases.

Tech or not, they've always been like this.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

You're out of your mind if you thought bill gates was someone to look up to.

Nothing happened. It was always like this. Geeks got unduly put on a pedestal. They got a reputation that was never earned. They're not any different than your typical psychopath executive.

I grew up in a town where a lot of these types of guys have become multimillionaires since 2010s tech boom. One person manages some hundreds of millions of dollars AI investment portfolio. That was before the GPT explosion. I have no idea how big they are now but I wouldn't be surprised if it's billions.

Growing up they were almost all psychopathic. Lying, cheating, backstabbing type of people. Nothing like the timid altruistic geek that pop culture proliferates. The more normal people did not go into tech. The actual timid types have had modest middle class careers in tech.

At its very core, capitalism breeds greed.

Capitalism

I'd blame capitalism. And corporations prefering short term growth and attracting investors. And the whole modern business model of exploiting users private data to sell advertisements. That's how the whole internet works these days and thak makes being evil baked into every successful company.

And btw: Zuck did one good thing. He personally gave us competetive AI models to tinker around with. If it weren't for people like him, we would have AI dominate us without the average person having access to more than the online services like ChatGPT. Yeah but that doesn't take away from the things you lined out.

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.

Tom from MySpace really is the nicest guy on this list...he was my first friend on there! 😎

The earlier generation of tech leaders were just as bad as the current ones. Bill Gates was willing to do almost anything to hold onto his near monopoly and to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. Larry Ellison has made a life's work out of taking over software projects that benefited everyone, then brutally killing them. I actually met Steve Jobs several times and he was an awful person who made his fortune by exploiting more talented people. And so on.

There were plenty of decent tech innovators, as there are now. Then, as now, they did not end up running huge corporations.

I'm sure there were others, but the only exceptions I can think of were from the generation before that. Bill Hewlett and David Packard founded HP and made it a great place to work, a center of innovation, and a very profitable company, until they retired. And it all went to hell rather quickly.

Well, buttflapper...

Capitalism filters sociopaths to the top. It's a feature, not a bug. It has always been this way. Read about Henry Ford and JD Rockefeller, John Kellog. The list goes on.

The good ones retire or have important, but not the most profitable/public facing jobs.

The other Apple Steve, Steve Wozniak founded the EFF and was the tech guy at early Apple. Jobs was the business guy.

John Carmack is a controversial figure, but he's actually the tech wiz kid the techbros dream they are. He seems to just be interested in pushing technology and had some choice words for Meta when he left. They should have let him have his axe to carry around.

Two big ones:

1. Power corrupts

2. The laws in America have been bent or repurposed specifically to serve the entity, not person, with more money over all else.

Capitalism. Specifically, the stock market. IPOs make good companies into bad companies.

Being owned by stockholders effectively removes any amount of "human" in the company's choices and direction. There becomes a single goal, to which everything else is sacrificed: make stock prices go up in the short term. The C-suite execs will say all sorts of other shit, but any appearance of accountability or altruism is solely geared to making more money at any cost. Any leadership with a soul will be forced to either give up trying to be "good", or they leave.

To get to the top you have to throw people under the bus.

"Leaders"

They were always bad people but media shilled them as good guys... Buffet is similar example. We all LARPed it. Now we are learning the hard truth.

These people a part of the owner class and control key portions of us and global economy.

They are not the same as the rest of us. They know it and they act upon it.

When you step on an ant do you even notice?

They don't either peasant, now get back to fucking cucking and making daddy some mother fucking money, boy

They all have a story like this. They are all terrible.

I think Gareth Reynolds said it or was it Jordan from knowledge fight? But once you reach a billion you should get a medal saying you won capitalism then be 100% taxed the rest of your life.

Money

Hint: it's not just in tech...

Because you can’t climb to the top of the pile without treading on people and crushing others.

Sadly, in this world you accomplish nothing for being nice and considerate. If you want to leave an impact (anything - a new invention, a new product, a new idea, anything with impact to contemporary culture) you have to bully yourself to the top, including stealing ideas and screwing people over, as well as to exploit people. All "great" people who accomplished something did that: Gates (Microsoft), Jobs (Apple), Musk (Tesla, Twitter), Bezos (Amazon), Thiel (PayPal, Palantir), Zuckerberg (Meta), Huffman (Reddit), as well as many politicans. It's a personality treat.

Here is a video that explains the issue, albeit it focuses on designers:

A CEO can be good. But a CEO with public shareholders has no choice.

I'm not saying that most CEOs aren't bastards but it's not necessary to be in the position or compete. But when you have public shareholders they are going to demand that you take every dollar through whatever means possible.

Perfect human beings don't exist. Apparently there's a religion positing there was one perfect human, but we nailed him to a cross for interfering with business.

Here's a thought. If you were able to get away with Almost Anything (TM) and were surrounded by people praising your genius, dashing good looks and boundless generosity towards their persons, how long would it take for you to lose your moral compass, you think? You would pretty soon lose your frame of reference to the normal people, and your empathy would follow. And that's assuming you're not 2nd or 3rd generation ultra rich, in which case you never had it to begin with.

Succession is a very good TV series exploring the mindset of such people, if you want to see it in action. Otherwise, history is full of examples - such as Nero, the greatest poet to ever set fire to Rome.

I know there are exceptions, like everywhere else in life. But those tend to cultivate humility as a habit, like other people go to the gym.

Leaders in tech have to be good at raising money from rich investors, lenders, etc.. Most of these people aren't tech people. They're hedge fund managers, bankers, or just people with lots of money. So consider the following 2 strategies:

Strategy A: Be realistic. Explain the positives and the negatives. The tech looks promising, but the future is uncertain. It's a risky investment that could pay off massively, but it probably won't. You the CEO know a lot about the topic, but you're still just a guy, not a miracle worker.

Strategy B: Just focus on the plus side. It will succeed, and it'll succeed way more than anyone expects. Not only that, you the CEO are an unstoppable hardworking galaxy brain genius who sleeps on the factory floor. They should be so lucky to get to invest in your company.

Which of these is more likely to work with investors who don't know tech? And which is most likely to be the strategy chosen by leaders who are narcissistic and deceitful? The answer is the same.

It's where the money is. Simple.

If you want to push material that completely contradicts morals (respect for privacy and free speech, for example), maybe you need this kind of people. They'll just say they don't give a f*** right to your face. Not that Bill Gates or Larry Page are any different, the times just changed. Do you really believe Bill Gates is that intelligent God among men? Because I don't.

Capitalism is the death of society and aligns the interests of people and corporations alike towards a race to the bottom for maximum exploitation.

EDIT: Death of society may sound like hyperbole, but it's me just paraphrasing one of the biggest advocates of capitalism in history: Margaret Thatcher, who famously said: "There is no such thing as society, only individuals."

Shitty people like to become olympic power-grabbers.

And they can do a lot of damage so you hear about it. You've heard zero news stories about "ceo doesn't do heinously evil thing", because those don't become stories.

Because tech is capitalism, and it goes hand in hand with fascism

Oh summer child

Because money

OK. Listen. These people are damn smart at what they do. Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos.

I have to deal with people every day that cannot do anything other than watch Fox News, News Max, and News Nation.

The above named people are taking advantage of people like that.

That's all i have to say.

Resources and influence will always drunkard's-walk into the hands of the unscrupulous and manipulative, pretty much by definition.

They're going to be drawn to it, they'll fight dirtier for it, and they'll use the power it gives them to prevent anyone else from taking it away.

Big Tech is a huge source of both, so it would be amazing if the people on top of the heap weren't massive piles of shit.

Copying and pasting something I said elsewhere just the other day, because it fits:

However, I do think it’s also cultural in the tech companies. The modern tech culture was borne from an attitude that was 100% rooted in “well the law says we can’t do this, so we’ll do this instead, which is different on a technical and legal level, but achieves the same end-result.”

This was heavily evident in early piracy, which went from centralized servers of Napster and Kazaa to the decentralized nature of Bittorrent entirely in response to civil suits for piracy. It was an arms race. Soon enough the copyright holders responded by hiring third parties to hide in torrent swarms to be able to log IPs and hit people “associated” with those IPs with suits for sharing trivial amounts of copyrighted data with the third party. That was responded to with private trackers, and eventually, streaming.

Each step was a technical response to an attempt by society to legally regulate them. Just find a new technical way that’s not regulated yet!

The modern tech companies never lost that ethos of giving technical responses to route around new legal regulation. Which, in itself, is further enabled by capitalism, as you astutely pointed out.

This isn't meant to be an indictment against regular ass people and internet piracy, but it's more about pointing out the leaders in the tech industry at large have always had a similar mindset to the pirates. That their response to attempted regulation of their industry has always been to ignore the spirit of the regulation and attempt to achieve the same result through technically wonkery as opposed to legal wonkery.

I mean, you don't have to look farther than Sean Parker from Napster. Guy still has oodles of money and connections from running what amounted to an illegal business model at the time. He's still heavily involved in lots of major tech groups with oodles of money.

You're just not dealing with rational or good faith actors if their response to any attempt to reign them in is to avoid the attempt to be reigned in by changing how the tech works.

you either die a hero or live long enough to see your self become a villain

The information technology industry in the US has always had a thread of Ayn Rand's philosophy running through it. Some of the people who were part of the computer revolution in the 70s and 80s knew her personally, and thought of themselves as Randian heroes (which is to say, they were narcissists). This is sort of a foundational aspect of the culture of Silicon Valley, so it's always been there.

I highly recommend the documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace by Adam Curtis.

It was a lot easier to pretend to be a good person when every moral failure you make wasn't broadcast around the world the moment it was discovered. Case and point, look into Bill Gates more. He wasn't always a respectful guy, got caught up in the whole "filthy communists" schtick when the government was investigating his company, advocates for more restrictive control of aid distribution favoring manufacturers more than those he's trying to help, conflicts of interest in his charity, opposing twitters ban of Trump after the insurrection, etc.

One word - capitalism. It favours master-slave model

Thanks for letting me know about Zuck’s behaviour in Hawaii . I was unaware, and should be as a person of the pacific. What a disgusting imperialist culture destroyer and pig. As with many first nation cultures, to Polynesians land is sacred and we are a part of it , maybe guardians of it , more so than any possible ownership over it which is a ridiculous nonsensical concept. Was it not enough that he has compromised international democracy with his extremely dubious contributions to humanity. These sociopathic siliconvalley billionaires really are a scourge. This isn't exclusive to tech though.

As for your overall point, I never particularly admired any corporate characters in tech. All in all I believe the whole sector is overvalued and its importance in life is way over emphasised - the social platforms, and google particularly are overinflated advertising businesses and so of course their self importance has been trumpeted loudly..by themselves and everyone who hitched their giddy advertising budgets to the illusory service provided. Barely as effective as traditional advertising of a century ago. They’ve constructed a panopticon we have trouble looking away from - they even want us to wear goggles to shoe us banners wr cant look away from, to sell us their own useless trinkets.

I believe we should think of the so called tech industry as merely a single component in whatever sector of life it happens to provide a product or service to. Not as a single industry but as a small department of weirdos running say the plumbing (though actual plumbing is arguably more important) with a dingy office in the basement. The cEOs of these are merely the hated bloated bosses of the ones really doing the work. But we should also judge their utility objectively. Sure some aspects are useful in some specific ways. But how useful really? What has the net gain been to humanity of gadget x, or platform Y , or pseudo-sub-industry z? What real energy has it consumed in order to solve what problem(s)? What has the human cost been? They don't think in these terms but we actual humans should.

By the way I work in a tech area, in a small way. I like to think I speak from an angle of some experience with the way I’ve seen some behave, and the irreverant way some customers treat their ‘vendors’. The aura of the tech world is a cult-like bubble which each of these corporations create for themselves , and fledgling startups clamour for, and when clustered as one concept adds up to a massive bubble of hot stinking gas begging to pop.

Unfortunately concepts of value in our economy rarely match their true usefulness. The market is always correct and self corrects, apparently. I look forward to it, but the actual steps forward can be hard to appreciate with all the noise in that hype filled graph.

Also, and this isn’t exclusive to tech, corporations behave like psychopaths due to their narrow goals , profit being the main one, so the characters who float to the top of this septic system of single minded psychopathy tend to be sociopathic due to what they have needed to do to get there. Perhaps for tech this is more a late stage thing, in contrast to our memories of the romantic early days having been more about scrappy boffins soldering things in their parents garage. Now its about whipping up misconceptions in order to raise copious amounts of (mispent) capital in order to make…a smartphone app based ‘platform’ that provides solutions to problems we don't have. So long as the pitch had “A.I” in each sentence.

So yeh, that this environment has resulted in some psychos with a disproportionate amount of money (and therefore political clout) is not a surprise.

To varying degrees if we live in democracies, we are all responsible for creating these monsters. It’s our responsibility to do something about it. Such as raising awareness -as you have done, choosing alternatives, thinking about whether a tech option really is necessary in your life (e.g choosing Amazon over your local independent bookstore), in your workplace (if you have any power here: atleast expressing an alternative method, or solution to your colleagues or managers), and holding tech providers to some level of account at the least with your skepticism. And obviously boycotting what you can. Also remaining hyper aware of the scammy nature of much of the so called sector in its business practices.

I never trusted Tom from myspace as a default insta friend, but he now does seem quaint . But the tech industry is not really an industry and it definitely isn't the world.

That's a fair question.

I think there's many different - and valid - answers to this, depending on how you look at the question.

I guess you could say that society had a stronger immune system back then to eliminate these bad cells. These days, they run way too freely. It's bad, and i'm not sure whether we need a structural reform or whether we can wriggle through this one.

Power corrupts people. On top of that, the capitalist machine isn't satisfied with "just okay" performance. It's infinite growth, or nothing. Once you hit the upper limit of what you can deliver, you start delivering the same, but with a lot of cut corners

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

Shareholders want the CEO that gets them more money. If that person doesn't deliver, they don't ask why, they ask when. If they don't like the answer, they get a new CEO. Rinse repeat, here we are.

Except Zuckerberg, of course. He's just evil.

People haven't really changed. As always, power corrupts. When the rewards are great enough, it seems people are often enough willing to compromise their integrity.

It's the same reason why hip hops sucks in '96

The answer is at 0:24

Quick guess - as people become enormously successful, the values they had as individuals often fade. Executives forget what it was like to live paycheck to paycheck (assuming they didn’t have rich parents to begin with). They feel less need to hide (or even acknowledge) their flaws, because now they’re making “fuck you” money.

Our society values money over integrity. If you’re rich enough, you can literally get away with murder.

I can't really say whether any of the people you've listed are actually more or less "evil" than one another but in terms of why they present differently, there are a couple of factors I can think of.

One is the changing state of the tech industry. Data and attention are the most valuable commodities now, so these businesses are designed to be aggressively anti-consumer. There is also less big investment now and/or companies are required to pay back their investments quicker, which has degraded the quality of their products and services. Google's big decline is heavily related to this, for example.

The other aspect is the rise of the culture war shit in the US. Most of the people you listed are American or live in the US, and people there have completely rotted their brains with that shit. It's infecting the rest of the West as well but if you want to see what a genuinely retarded nation looks like, the US is where it's at.

I suspect if you swapped these groups of people between their relative eras you'd be disappointed in how similar they turn out.

When tech isn't controlled by the user: then the user is controlled by the dev, and power corrupts.

Some are born selfish and others are molded by our insistence you strive for money to survive.

Leaders tend towards evil. Early in a technology there’s space for innovators to wind up on top, that allows for some morality agnostic advancement. But as time goes on you find yourself led by those who sought leadership, those whose ruthlessness enabled leadership, and those who’ve been in leadership long enough to have had it damage their morality.

Tech is no longer new and fancy, it’s no longer a space where a few people with an idea can wind up in charge of something valuable. It’s an established industry led by investors and businesspeople, their concerns are not for your benefit and even if they are your experiences are so alien to them that they will try to assist using the frameworks they think in, ones of hierarchy, investment, and other capitalistic and paternalistic world views. But most don’t care, they think they do, they think competition raises everyone, and in the off chance they feel a twinge of guilt about their victims that’s what they tell themselves.

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.

It's better to assume good humans don't exist, they just haven't shown (to you) their bad side yet

Big money / venture capitalists prefer to fund people of their kind: the ruthless. They also accept the spineless they can boss around. That's gone on for centuries, so the good funders have been trampled and gone extinct.

In my opinion : The money is MUCH more lucrative now because of data mining. That's it. That's the real product being sold and because it isn't encouraging innovation for innovation's sake, but for a bottom line or goal that almost certainly depends on features that gather ad much data as possible to sell... etc etc

$$$$

This is okay but my post about AI is not? Same as reddit 😔.

In my opinion it’s pretty simple… greed

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