Fascism For First Time Founders
from the democracy-is-actually-important-for-innovation dept
Over the last year or so I’ve seen a disturbing tendency in tech/startup/VC worlds to buy into the neoreactionary view that for startups to be successful they need to get on board the Trump train. Yes, there are the big name folks who everyone knows about and who didn’t really surprise anyone—Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, Elon Musk (pre-fallout)—but the more troubling trend has been watching younger entrepreneurs and VCs listen to their podcasts, read their posts and books, and slowly nod along to the idea that democracy is holding back innovation.
The logic might seem compelling at first: regulations slow us down, politicians don’t understand tech, wouldn’t it be better if someone who “gets it” could just cut through all the bureaucratic nonsense? But this line of thinking leads directly to the neoreactionary conclusion that what we really need is a “tech-friendly” strongman to sweep away democratic institutions and let the smart people (spoiler: they mean themselves) run things.
It seems like it might be useful to point out how incredibly dangerous and counterproductive that utter nonsense is. The idea of a benevolent dictator to get past the nonsense is appealing for those who can’t think more than a step or two ahead and consider what happens next.
Look, I get it. You’re building something cool. You heard the stories some are telling of the Biden admin looking to regulate crypto or AI (not that any such regulations ever actually appeared) and you think “ugh, too heavy handed, just let me code.” And then you hear Trump promising to “cut red tape” and “unleash American innovation,” and you think: Finally, someone who gets it, someone who will stay out of my way.
But before you start crafting your “make coding great again” hat, let’s have a little chat about why embracing fascism is probably the worst possible business strategy for anyone actually trying to build something innovative.
I know, I know. “Fascism” sounds hyperbolic. You’re not goose-stepping around your WeWork space. You just want lower taxes and fewer forms to fill out. And trust me, I’ve spent 25 years calling out idiotic tech policy proposals by clueless politicians, so the idea of getting an administration that will “free up” tech sounds appealing.
But here’s the thing: there’s a reason this “tech-friendly dictator” fantasy has been bubbling up in VC circles and startup accelerators for years. It’s not just about cutting red tape—it’s about the fundamental belief that techbros like themselves shouldn’t have to deal with the messy compromises that democracy itself requires. They’d rather sweep away all those pesky democratic institutions and let the “smart people” (spoiler: they mean themselves) run things.
The basic pitch is seductive: democracy is messy, slow, and often staffed by people who don’t understand technology. Wouldn’t it be better to have someone in charge who just… gets it?
No. No, it would not.
The Dictator’s Innovation Trap
Here’s what the “just let tech bros run everything” crowd fundamentally misunderstands about how innovation actually works: It requires exactly the kind of chaotic, unpredictable, open ecosystem that authoritarianism systematically destroys.
Real innovation happens when companies have to compete on merit, not on who can kiss the leader’s ass most effectively. In a functioning democracy with actual rule of law, the best products have the opportunity to win. In an authoritarian system, the company that makes the dictator happy wins—and that’s it.
Think that sounds far-fetched? Look at how quickly Elon Musk’s companies started getting favorable treatment once he became Trump’s Number One donor. And then look at how quickly Trump turned on Elon and threatened to pull all the subsidies his businesses get from the federal government as punishment over Elon criticizing his budget plan. That’s not competition driving innovation—that’s cronyism driving mediocrity.
This isn’t theoretical. When political favor becomes more important than product quality, innovation dies. The companies that survive aren’t the ones building the best, most innovative products—they’re the ones best at navigating the whims of whoever’s in power.
The Brain Drain You’re Not Thinking About
Want to know what really kills innovation? Brain drain. And nothing drives brain drain like encroaching fascism.
And the brain drain has already started.
Foreign students are looking to study elsewhere rather than deal with visa uncertainty and hostile rhetoric. Many of America’s smartest researchers are being wooed to other countries that offer more stable funding and less political interference. International PhD students, postdocs, and visiting researchers—the people who often go on to start the most innovative companies—are increasingly choosing Canada, the UK, or other destinations over the US.
This isn’t just the H-1B visa holders that the Trump inner circle loves to demonize. It’s the entire global talent pool that has always seen America as the place where you could build something amazing without worrying about arbitrary political interference.
The United States became the global innovation leader in part because we attracted the best and brightest from around the world. They came here because we had something other countries didn’t: a stable, democratic system where merit mattered more than connections, where you could build something without worrying that tomorrow’s political winds might destroy everything you’ve worked for.
But that’s been trashed. In mere months.
History shows us what happens when countries drive away intellectual talent. When authoritarian regimes came to power in the past, they didn’t just drive out targeted groups—they drove out anyone who valued intellectual freedom and scientific integrity. The result? Countries like the United States got Einstein, Fermi, and a whole generation of brilliant minds who helped build the post-war economy.
You think the smartest engineers and entrepreneurs from around the world are going to want to move to a country run by a dictator? Even a supposedly “tech-friendly” one?
The Infrastructure You Take For Granted
You know what else makes innovation possible? Boring stuff like universities, research institutions, and a functioning legal system.
You know what authoritarian regimes love to do? Gut all of those things.
Think about where most breakthrough technologies actually come from. Not from some genius in a garage (though that’s a nice story). They come from decades of basic research funded by institutions that operate independently of political pressure. The internet you’re using to read this? That was DARPA. The GPS in your phone? Military research. The algorithms powering AI? University research.
Here’s how the ecosystem actually works: government funds basic research that has no obvious commercial application. Universities and research institutions build on that work, training graduate students who become the next generation of researchers and entrepreneurs. Some of those students go on to start companies that turn basic research into products. Others stay in academia and continue pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.
Yes, eventually the private markets and companies take over the commercialization, but so much of the core infrastructure of innovation comes from elsewhere.
And none of this happens overnight. The internet took decades to go from ARPANET to the web. GPS took years of satellite launches and signal processing advances. The machine learning techniques powering today’s AI boom are built on decades of research in statistics, computer science, and neuroscience.
Fascists hate independent institutions. They see them as threats to their authority. So they defund them, politicize them, or just straight-up destroy them. And when they do, innovation dies—not immediately, but over the course of years as the pipeline of basic research dries up.
The Trust Problem
Here’s something else you might not have considered: innovation requires trust. Not just between individuals, but institutional trust. People need to believe that contracts will be enforced, that property rights will be protected, that the rules won’t change arbitrarily based on the whims of whoever’s in charge.
Building a startup requires long-term thinking. You’re asking employees to bet their careers on your vision. You’re asking investors to put money into something that might not pay off for years. You’re asking customers to trust that your product will be supported and improved over time.
None of that works in an environment where the rules change based on political caprice.
You think venture capitalists are going to invest in your startup if they’re worried that next month’s political purge might decide that your industry is suddenly “unpatriotic”? You think customers are going to adopt your product if they’re concerned that using it might put them on some government enemies list? Biden may not have been the most tech friendly president, but he didn’t threaten to deport a tech CEO over a policy disagreement.
Authoritarian systems are fundamentally unpredictable. The rules change based on the leader’s mood, personal vendettas, or political needs. That’s the opposite of the stable, predictable environment that innovation requires. When political favor matters more than legal precedent, no one can plan for the future.
The Historical Precedent
Here’s the thing about fascism: it never ends well. Not for the countries that embrace it, not for the people who live under it, and definitely not for the entrepreneurs who think they can ride the tiger.
Every authoritarian regime in history has eventually turned on the business community that initially supported it. The oligarchs who think they can control the dictator always end up learning the hard way that the dictator controls them.
You think the tech bros who are currently sucking up to Trump are going to maintain their influence indefinitely? Just ask Elon Musk. One day you’re the world’s richest man and Trump’s “first buddy,” the next day you’re being publicly humiliated and threatened with the destruction of your business empire because you criticized his “one big beautiful bill” for being a disaster.
And that’s just the beginning. Historical patterns are clear: authoritarian leaders use business elites to consolidate power, then systematically eliminate them as independent actors. The German industrialists who bankrolled Hitler’s rise thought they could control him. The Russian oligarchs who backed Putin in the early days thought they could maintain their influence through personal relationships.
They were all wrong. Dictators don’t share power. They accumulate it. And when they’re done using you, they discard you—or worse.
The Choice
So here’s your choice: you can embrace the chaotic, messy, sometimes frustrating democratic system that has produced more innovation than any other system in human history. Or you can bet your company’s future on a dictator who eagerly promises to make everything simple and efficient mainly by ignoring the nuances and complexities of reality.
One of these has a track record of creating the richest, most innovative economy in human history. The other has a track record of destroying everything it touches—including those who support it early on.
Democracy isn’t perfect. It’s slow, it’s messy, it’s often staffed by people who don’t understand technology. But it’s also the only system that has consistently created the conditions for innovation to flourish: open competition, institutional independence, predictable rules, and the freedom to build something without worrying about political retaliation.
Fascism is really good at one thing: making everything worse.
If you’re really building something that matters, something that could change the world, you want that world to be one where merit matters more than loyalty, where competition drives progress, where the best ideas win regardless of who came up with them.
You want democracy. You just might not realize it yet.
Filed Under: competition, democracy, fascism, innovation, vcs
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Fascism For First Time Founders”
I’m a little surprised that you didn’t mention how, like current ur-fascist Donald Trump, a lot of techbros—especially the rich and powerful ones—are obsessed with genetic superiority and IQ and other such eugenics-laden bullshit.
Re:
Trump doesn’t qualify for the “ur-” tag, there have been many other attempts at fascism in US politics. Apparently it’s just not taught well enough in school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_the_United_States
Re: Patriarchies are unstable and will collapse.
Societies run as Patriarchies are inherently unstable and will collapse, as humans have observed over historical time.
In prehistoric time, there was a bottleneck in the Y chromosome (presumably a side-effect of Patriarchy), which ended when that prehistoric society collapsed.
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract
Patriarchy is unstable over evolutionary time because it causes inbreeding depression when the Patriarch favors his sons over other males with better genes. When the Patriarch favors his children, he sends other men’s children to die in war, and eventually the Patriarch’s line becomes filled with ‘Fredo-types’ and the line goes extinct due to inbreeding depression. What the human gene pool needs most, is diversity.
This happened in Europe, with the Habsburg Dynasty. The male line went extinct due to inbreeding depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg#Habsburg_inbreeding_and_extinction_of_the_male_lines
The ‘problem’ in a technological society, is that there will be nothing for low-status males to do that is worth anything. Usually, in a Patriarchy, the low-status males go to war and most of them get killed, leaving more women for those who remain, or are favored by the Patriarch.
I can’t think of anything that humans can do that would justify keeping humans around, purely for economic reasons. Sex work? But then how will the users of sex workers get money to pay sex workers? Child care? But children can’t pay anything. Brown nose the Patriarch? But being good at brown nosing the Patriarch doesn’t overlap with competence in anything else.
Poor people can’t pay anything either. The more expensive staying alive is, the less wealth poor people will have, and social status can be purchased from them for less money, so the wealthy will always seek to acquire ever more wealth, even (or especially) if it kills poor children.
A society where social status is fungible can’t produce a stable, advanced society, especially when that society is a Patriarchy (because males have only a single Y chromosome).
This was well worded. Thank you
Re:
Was it though?
Except when Musk has made a pact with The
DevilDonald, he knew exaclty what would be the risk.He played with fire, and get caught into one of his burning cars (or exploding rockets). Meanwhile, Zuckerberg bow and paid, he seems out of danger.
They are all wealthy thanks to the thousands of smart and hard workers (and many H-B1 visas) that would never get more than 0.0001% of the wealth.
They are all autocratic bullshitters, except one has control over 330M lives.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Already Happened
Yes. See: Dubai.
Re:
How many Dubai-based tech companies do you do business with on a regular basis?
Re:
I’ve just coined a term for your bouts of cerebral diarrhoea, Kobes: Spannerisms
Re:
Ahh, so Koby is a Qatari. That makes his deference to monarchists much more understandable.
Re:
Koby, thanks for finally admitting that you think Donald Trump is a fascist dictator.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Every day, anyone who disagrees with you is called a racist / facist / misogynist. Simply pointing out that there is a rapidly growing city of almost entirely expatriates, despite the authoritarian government and low rankings for human rights, is apparently enough to reduce you to childish name calling. Your attitude is why public trust in the “media” is so low.
Re: Re: Re:
Your favorite president is on Epstein’s list.
Re: Re: Re:2
Apparently, Epstein didn’t have such a list, but he did visit Mar-A-Lago frequently enough to be photographed there with the house’s owner, which has way more evidentiary value than a name on a list would have.
Re: Re: Re:
You’ve demonstrated enough support for fascist ideologies and acts that the descriptor is warranted in regards to you. That besides, you don’t need to be a bigot to be a fascist—but being a fascist puts you in league with bigots.
Re: Re: Re:2
In investigating that claim, I came across this article, which features a photograph of a man with a swastika tattoo on his right arm along with a prominent jaw and a forehead that slopes back, reminding me very much of a Neanderthal. So it looks like Early Modern Humans gave rise to autistic people and Neanderthals gave rise to racists.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah. The poor pedophile is butt hurt.
Re: Re: Re:
You keep pretending this is true, but plenty of people who disagree with Mike aren’t called these terms.
When the disagreement is about authoritarianism and you take the side of conservative authoritarianism, you are a fascist.
When the disagreement is about how ethnic groups should be treated and you demonstrate contempt based on the ethnicity of some groups, you are a racist.
You keep pretending these labels have no meaning other than “person I don’t like” because for conservatives, their labels don’t have real meaning beyond scare words, such as “radical leftist” or “communist” or “terrorist.”
Just because you don’t understand the terminology being used doesn’t mean they are without meaning.
Re: Re: Re:
This is empirically untrue, as anyone can see from looking through the history of my writings. I have reserved the term “fascist” until there were actual fascist things happening, so your attempt to pretend otherwise is so weak and pathetic that it’s unbecoming, Koby.
Either way, this post is in response to explicit admissions from neoreactionary types that they like fascist ideas and dictators, so it’s sorta weird for you to go “nah, you’re just name calling” when we’re responding to both what they’ve said and done.
I appreciate how me calling out the obvious meaning of your admissions has resulted in this flop sweat of a word salad coming from you. Fascist bootlicker like yourself always think you’re smart, but are so easy to trick into admitting things they didn’t think through.
Anyway, good work.
Incredibly, in the last few months, as we’ve called out more and more bullshit, while the mainstream media has cowered and bootlicked, we’ve seen more traffic, more support, and more people talking about how useful and important BestNetTech has become. In other words, trust in BestNetTech has increased BECAUSE we’re willing to actually call fascist rhetoric fascist.
I get that this has you nervous. And you should be.
Re: Re: Re:
No Koby.
You get called a racist for saying racist things.
You get called a fascist for saying fascist things.
You get called a misogynist for saying misogynistic things.
It just so happens that most of us here disagree with racism, fascism and misogyny, and will absolutely call it out.
Re: Re: Re:
What a joke. Trust in media is low because they are afraid of using words like “fascism” and “racism” and paper over issues with bland euphemism.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The problem here is the president isn’t facist and you’re a brain dead zombie
Re:
That’s rich, coming from something trying to rebut an article with all the wit, grace, and persuasiveness of a brain dead zombie. Also you smell bad and you look funny.
Try again. This time, might I suggest involving your brain, or what’s left of that sack of wasted chemical bonds, post-joining the cult?
Re:
Odd that you misspelled “facist” just like Koby did an hour a part. Either fascist apologists don’t know how to spell or Koby is trying to astroturf consensus. Both seem entirely plausible!
Re: Re:
Third option: One or more people (although most likely just the one) is trying to portmanteau the words “fascist” and “racist”.
Re:
Same misspelling as Koby, that can’t be a coincidence
Trump is ticking all the boxes of the basic definition of fascism and following the same actions as historically documented fascists. You can’t agree with his actions and be offended by the descriptor.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Dumb
Trump isn’t a facist though and he was elected through a democracy. You are the one trying to dictate and corrupt people’s thoughts.
Re:
Tell me you don’t understand either fascism or democracy…
Re:
Were you also taught the NSDAP sprung into power fully formed without the consent of the German people?
Re:
So was Hitler.
Re: Re:
Well, akshually, Fascism is the political movement started by Mussolini, who, unlike Hitler, took power after a successful coup attempt.
Re: Re: Re:
Not the point. The point is that fascism can start through a democratic process. It happened in Germany. It’s happened in the US.
Re: Re: Re:
And that might be the correct answer if you stopped learning about fascism circa the 1930s, but scholarship since then has done a lot more to define the term broadly, such that other regimes are also classified as fascist and the shared traits are used to define the term now. Fascism can arise from democratic elections.
Re:
Yeah, it’s totally not an authoritarian concept to label free speech as “corrupt(ing) people’s thoughts.” That’s a very normal, freedom-loving thing to say. I’m glad you’re such a champion of democracy that believes only the dear leader’s propaganda is allowed to “corrupt people’s thoughts.”
Re:
Which trump friend or family member is letting you fuck kids?
Re:
Koby, if you’re going to sockpuppet, you could do better than misspell a word in the exact same way for the umpteenth time and use the name of somebody who absolutely disagrees with all that you stan for.
I really dont think its democratic
I get the feeling this is incomplete.
Its forgotten a few things. that the Corps have been taking over the Gov. since the mid 80’s. After all the Creators Left the USA, cause we asked them to clean up the environment they despoiled.
What was left and still is, are the Bill collectors, that dont Innovate only add Stupid things, and Over Charge even more.
They have Earned so much from the Citizens, that they could BUY representation From the gov. and Still make more profit them ever seen.
They Break the laws and the gov. does nothing, they Bypass regulation and Build Up and up and up.
How do we expect Higher and higher profits from 1 nation, without the Gov. Supporting it?
Then we get to Trump. Ran are Ind., then ran as Demo, then republican?? But how to get backing? No money left, the properties Sold under the table, he HAD the contacts from around the World.
To many Promises made.
But can we Sort out Who is following a Rich person with Stupid comments and promises he cant Fulfil.
The United States is a stumbling drunk in dire need of rehab. It has been for decades, to be honest. Whether it checks itself in, or if its friends stage an intervention & forcefully commit it to rehab, remains to be seen. I am hoping for the former, personally.
The Silicon Valley tech bros are the enablers in this scenario and they need to be shut out of the conversation.
Vote for the leopards and your face is off the menu... today. Tomorrow...
Fascism and dictatorships are great… if you’re at the very top, however the funny thing about a system that requires there to always be an Other to villainize and blame all of society’s problems on is that it will always, without fail, turn on itself and even it’s most strident supporters given enough time as the previous Others are eliminated and new ones are needed to replace them.
Look at Russia. In an Oligarchy, the oligarchs are always afraid
Re:
In Russia, window opens you!
Re: And for a fictional example of deadly oligarchal infighting...
…you only need to watch “Game of Thrones”!
Hacker News…
The best example of this thinking is Hacker News. It seems submissions critical of the current admin or if tech fascists in general are flagged shortly after submission. The best example is the HN submission for this article appears to have been flagged away in under an hour.
Re:
To give them the benefit of the doubt, that site tries to avoid political topics in general because of how often the comments devolve into repetitive arguments that quickly stray from the topic in the article posted.
I have read enough comments by their moderators to get that impression, but haven’t tried to work out any hard numbers myself.
They even have a system to downrank stories which have their comments too deeply nested as a form of flame-war detection.
This is what I wish more people understood, from The MAGA-types to the LGBs who think they can save themselves by throwing trans people under the bus; there is no such thing as being one of the “good ones,” fealty will not save you. The only difference between you and those “others” is the number of holes already in the wall when they line you up against it.
In the end, they will come for us all.
Don’t believe me? Just ask the Jews who supported Hitler how well it worked for them. Oh, except you can’t.
I don’t think the word fascism is useful anymore. Authoritarianism covers it better. That way we can include supposed communist countries like China who lure in foreign investors with promises of vast wealth, then pull the rug out if you say one wrong thing in your own country. Or letting Chinese become billionaires, then re-educating them if they get out of line.
Because capitalist and communist are just economic systems. The political system is authoritarianism and they use the economic system as a way to weaponize money. Whether it’s crony capitalism or crony communism, it’s all about the leaders rewarding loyalty and punishing disloyalty. Going back to Nixon Republicans turned deregulation into a shakedown scheme. You think you’re buying a president but he’s putting you in his pocket and you’ll need to keep paying and say you’re happy about it.
This is why our economy does better under Democrats, because we want a level playing field while Republicans only want to help the people who help them. The Dems don’t get everything right but the Repubs will always push things too far and assume they can BS their way out of it.
Re: Authoritarianism IS Fascism
For all practical purposes, the distinction between fascism and authoritarianism is a distinction without a difference. Both believe in rule by the use of force rather than consent from any source. That is also the fundamental weakness of the system: exercising force at scale requires consent, and eventually you will pass enough people off that you can no longer project force. It’s just a matter of time
The problem with the techbro authoritarians, as with Joe the Plumber, is the same: They all imagine themselves temporarily embarrassed dictators.
It's simpler than this
While I agree with everything in this post, it misses the key points:
Neither the tech bros nor any of the world oligarchies behind the current putsch ever pay the slightest heed to either 4 billion years of evolution or 6000 years of recorded human history. Nature appears to abhor monolithic power. (There is no “Lion King”; solitary lions are killed by bands of Cape Buffalo.)
Yes, human societies formed monoliths – kingdoms and feudalisms. And they were Ll, always unhealthy, foolishly run and uncreative, leading to catastophes called “history.”
The lesson? Both Nature and human societies are most creative when flat and competitive. and note this… these ‘libertarians NEVER mention that word anymore — competition. They used to! It was central to Adam Smith, the founder of liberalism, who called for flat-fair playing fields featuring maximum numbers of confident competitors.
Ingrates who yearn for restored feudalism are ignoramuses who ignore the exact thing that gave them opportunities and let them leverage upon the creativity of others.
Ignoramuses AND hypocrites who cravenly refuse the burden of proof that the society that out-created ALL others combined is the thing that’s flawed. While their lordship fantasies while sending wealth disparities pst French Revolution levels, will somehow spur more creativity than our mixed, Rooseveltean miracle.
In fact, it will! It will make the world’s educated people angry and creative when we hunt down and crack open every prepper bunker.
Re: It's simpler than this
Oh but they do pay attention! They look at the stories of the industrialists who managed to profit of Hitler and the Nazis and duck away quickly enough after that horrid system collapses, as every horrid system eventually will. They look at Hugo Boss, at BMW, at Volkswagen, and think: this is going to be me, I can outsmart the dictator.
The big tech CEOs’ about face was the most pathetic thing I’ve seen. Especially Zuck.
Meretricious, ignorant and rather pathetic article with more than a hint of the tired old ‘muh fascism’ meme repeated throughout. Black and white in his categorization of political systems, the author seems blind to the possibility that the purported benefits of his favoured political system could in fact exist under alternate systems, too. And the claim that the particular form of democratic system you favour has ‘produced more innovation than any other system in human history’ is actually patently false.
Re:
I guess what you aren’t saying out loud is that you think fascism is valid political system that fosters education, innovation and technological progress were everyone benefits…
Should be easy for you to provide examples of this.
Re:
Black and white in his categorization of political systems, the author seems blind to the possibility that the purported benefits of his favoured political system could in fact exist under alternate systems, too.
Which ‘alternative systems’ would those be precisely? Given the article I rather suspect I know which you’re talking about, but to avoid any potential confusion why don’t you be specific and spell it out for me and others.
Anyone who thinks freedom and democracy aren’t essential to a vibrant startup economy should take a look at how Saudi Arabia and the UAE are doing with their attempts to foster such things locally.
Re: The Beverly Hillbillies never invented anything
And the Saudi and Emirati rulers are basically Muslim Beverly Hillbillies: backward hicks who were thrust into prominence by their unearned oil wealth.
And the societies they rule aren’t innovative either: why bother when you’re swimming in so much money you can just pay foreigners to do all the crappy jobs?
Stop the fear mongering
I’m someone who actually spent 20 years in an authoritarian state. You can disagree with the Trump admin (I don’t like most of their policies) but it’s nowhere near authoritarianism, not alone fascism. An authoritarian state has no freedom of speech, press, or fair election. What the Democrats are doing in blue states are much concerning to me than Trump. We can disagree on policies, but it’s important to use these terms accurately so the real dangers aren’t watered down.
Re:
Do you honestly think we have any of those remaining in the US?
Trump has systematically dismantled all three, attacking speech at every opportunity, threatening and intimidating the press for posting positive stories about his political rivals to the point that they agreed to pay directly to Trump’s own “library” millions of dollars.
Simultaneously, he has sued others, including a pollster for giving an opinion on the election.
He has also made moves to dismantle free and fair elections. Yes, they still TALK about free speech and free elections, but so did Hungary. Expert Steven Levitsky talks about “Competitive Authoritarianism” which is just fascism with the false appearance of free and fair elections.
We’re living under fascism dude.
The comments about innovation and trust are really insightful.
I would disagree that there is a non-authoritarian way to run tech in its current incarnation if it is true that so much of tech is placing AI at the center of its business model. The basic premise of capitalist growth using AI is not possible in a democracy because you can’t destroy incomes, steal ground water, jack up energy bills, destroy property values, and turn the planet into an oven in a democracy. Alignment with autocracy is mission critical.
Also, I wanted to point out that competition in a free society does contribute to innovation. But the record for that is pretty weak. Most of the major innovations come from the public via the Pentagon, etc. tech companies make minor adjustments with pretty low risk because the taxpayer pays for the higher risk research and development.