> For future reference, whenever a techbro talks about “disrupting an industry,” they mean: “replicating an already existing industry, but subsidizing it heavily with venture capital, and externalizing its costs at the expense of the public or potential workers by circumventing consumer-, worker- or public-protection laws in order to hopefully undercut the competition long enough to bring about regulatory capture.”
@bgcarlisle that was a most excellent blog post. Each of the four points could easily be done as a longer stand-alone, but put them together and it’s an excellent illustration of how society has come to view an entire class of actors.
@clacke Just read the Wikipedia article:
> Up to 2013, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided $71 million to Planned Parenthood and affiliated organizations. In 2014, Melinda Gates has stated that the foundation "has decided not to fund abortion" ...
> No longer funding pro-choice isn't quite the same thing as anti-choice.
I never said they were "anti-choice"
I said that this is an example of the whims of a billionaire determining de facto healthcare policy, which it is
This is excellent.
re: Techbro mention
@bgcarlisle By "disrupting the industry", they mean "disrupting the current market shares in the industry", or, in other words, "successfully entering the industry".
I wonder what would happen if we just did `s/disrupting/successfully entering/g` in all such posts.
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully. Read more ...