Yup. Marc Andreessen is out there heavily begging Saudi princes for some cash.

Not just that, but Andersen and Thiel (especially Thiel) aren’t just amoral greedy men, but rather explicitly pro-authoritarians.

Silicon Valley has a fascism problem.

> Silicon Valley has a fascism problem.

I can imagine that if you see authoritarianism through the lens of the "constrained versus unconstrained" views of human nature a la Sowell, then it makes sense that Silicon Valley, ever so optimistic about the perfectibility of mankind, would tend towards that direction.

>Silicon Valley, ever so optimistic about the perfectibility of mankind

Is this sarcasm?

Coz from what I can see Silicon Valley is primarily concerned with (in order of importance) 1. $$$, 2. $$$$ and 3. $$$$$

Right, but in order to make that increasing profit year after year you need to pose that there is some vast frontier of unaccomplished innovation. There needs to be justification on some level for ever new iPhones and such.

Or, a frontier of yet unaccomplished exploitation.

I’m assuming you meant Andreesen but I could be wrong, I just don’t know a famous VC Anderson though I’m sure there is at least one.

I’ve listened to both Andreesen and Thiel and they both seem pretty anti-authoritarian, but perhaps they just espouse one ideology and practice another?

> ... both Andreesen and Thiel and they both seem pretty anti-authoritarian ...

Yet Thiel runs Palantir, which is arguably any authoritarian wet dream.

For Thiel: https://time.com/6092844/peter-thiel-power-biography-the-con...

Of course he doesn’t go around openly saying he’s pro fascism. Having listened to many of his speeches it’s not surprising he is though.

For Andreesen it’s not as clear there’s a direct link but after having listened to his Lex Friedman episode, I came of thinking he also thinks democracy won’t work.

Saudi princes are some of the largest buyers of PII. I even worked* for a company that would sell data to the US government, and then sell the Saudis the data on what data the US government was using. I have no idea what they are doing with all of it, but they certainly keep a lot of companies profitable.

* I left shortly after the company pivoted into being a PII broker.

> I even worked* for a company that would sell data to the US government, and then sell [...] the data on what data the US government was using.

That sounds odd, at best.

If the company were considering doing this sketchy-sounding thing, seems like they should've checked with their gov't customer points of contact, or gone straight to the State Dept.

Maybe they did do this, and were operating under permission/instructions, or maybe they didn't.

(Why it's believable that US tech company would sell out its US gov't customers: many facets of "tech" industry have had such irresponsible, sociopathic practices since before many current decision-makers entered the workforce, that I think there's no longer much intuitive sense about what's OK and what's not.)

Surely they also sold the US government the data on what the Saudis were buying, too? To do otherwise would just be leaving money on the table! /s(ish)

You’re right; and most bakeries will sell their bread to anyone that can pay for it.

This is not a very good analogy. Bread is not a dual use technology like surveillance tech.

There are plenty of classes of goods that are heavily regulated. For example, explosives.

Sure, and nearly every government can buy explosives.

Can't speak for anyone else but I certainly don't consider bombsmonger an honorable profession.

And I suppose the Ukrainians are supposed to just defend themselves with sticks?

Why not? It's what we expect of palestinians isn't it?

Good Lord, this is a morally bankrupt take on so many levels.

This is a garbage take. I’d strongly reconsider your stance on what is or isn’t simple about the Israel/Gaza conflict.

For one, it turns out that Hamas had a lot more than sticks on 10/7.

The only simple thing about this conflict is that nothing about it is simple. Simplistic takes like this are meaningless trash, and I really genuinely mean that with no ill intent.

It seems like pretty simply a case of genocide, but I'm not a genocide expert.

This guy is though. https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

One day you'll pretend to have seen it as clearly as I do now. No one is going to want to hear about how you thought the genocide was complicated. Remember this conversation when you lie to your grandchildren about it.

I certainly hope, for all our sakes, that Hamas and Iran do not become the largest governing powers in that region long-term.

If they do, I may not have grandchildren to “lie to,” because I, a Jew, will be dead.

But that’s cool, you just let Hamas do its thing, since that’s definitely the simplest answer to this simple problem.

Have a nice life.

Nobody said anything about honor. I was simply stating the fact that cherry-picking surveillance tech as suddenly “not to be sold to governments” is as equally absurd as suggesting that weapons manufacturers should not sell any weapons to any government.

Of course they will.

It's not cherry picking to point out that some technologies are more like arms than they are like ads, and that we should treat the creators as we do arms dealers. However that happens to be.

Okay. The article is about SV selling to America’s police.

America’s police has no problem acquiring arms.

I’d argue that, in effect, they’re already treated as arms dealers, who sell to police all the time.