Follow

Techbro mention 

Reminder:

> 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.”

blog.bgcarlisle.com/2019/06/05

· · Web · 7 · 120 · 120

Techbro mention 

@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.

@dredmorbius @bgcarlisle Yeah, I was confused by the Gates Foundation described as "pro-life" when conservatives call Bill "depopulationist" and "eugenicist", and Melinda got flak from the Catholic Church for saying her religious upbringing guided her toward offering people contraceptives.
@dredmorbius @bgcarlisle

Either way, this is a funny conclusion:

> one of the strongest arguments I can think of, for why philanthropists should instead be taxed and the funds they would have spent on their conception of the public good dispersed through democratic means

when the current administration of the democratic means, and several before it, from both branches of the American single-party state, is instituting gag rules and undermining private pro-choice work in both the States and abroad.
@bgcarlisle Sorry, didn't realize you were the author, or I'd have asked you in a constructive way. There is no discussion really, just a question: What's the basis
for calling the Gates Foundation pro-life?

@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" ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26

@bgcarlisle No longer funding pro-choice isn't quite the same thing as anti-choice.

I'm guessing they received pressure from the representative democracy.

@clacke

> 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

re: Techbro mention 

@bgcarlisle I figured this out in 1999. I am amazed that people are still just figuring this out now.

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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

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.