I remember when I was growing up, tech industry has so many people that were admirable, and you wanted to aspire to be in life. Bill Gates, founders of Google Larry Page, Sergey brin, Steve Jobs (wasn’t perfect but on a surface level, he was still at least a pretty decent guy), basically everyone involved in gaming from Xbox to PlayStation and so on, Tom from MySpace… So many admirable people who were actually really great…

Now, people are just trash. Look at Mark Zuckerberg who leads Facebook. Dude is a lizard man, anytime you think he has shown some character growth he does something truly horrible and illegal that he should be thrown in prison for. For example, he’s been buying up properties in Hawaii and basically stealing them from the locals. He’s basically committing human rights violations by violating the culture of Hawaiian natives and their land deeds that are passed down from generation to generation. He has been systematically stealing them and building a wall on Hawaii, basically a f*cking colonizer. That’s what the guy is. I thought he was a good upstanding person until I learned all these things about him

Current CEO of Google is peak dirtbag. Dude has no interest in the company or it’s success at all, his only concern is patting his pockets while he is there as CEO, and appeasing the shareholders. He has zero interest in helping or making anyone’s life pleasant at the company. Truly a dirtbag in every way.

Current CEO of Home Depot, which I now consider a tech company because they have moved out of retail and into the online space and they are rapidly restructuring their entire business around online sales, that dude is a total piece of work conservative racist. I remember working for this company, This dude’s entire focus is eliminating as many people as feasibly possible from working in the store, making their life living heck, does not see people as human beings at all. Just wants to eliminate anyone and everyone they possibly can, think they are a slave labor force

Elon musk, we all know about him, don’t need to really say much. Every time you think he’s doing something good for society, he proves you wrong And does the worst thing he can possibly do in that situation. It’s like he’s specifically trying to make the world the worst place possible everyday

Like, damn. What the heck happened to the world? You know? I thought the tech industry was supposed to be filled with these brilliant genius people who are really good for the world…

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        yeah, it’s basically this kind of shit from every wealthy business man. Even the fabled Rockefeller was hated for the same reasons, dude controlled 80% of global/american oil refining and people still hated him, even though his product was the market leader.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            yeah, it’s pretty common for any super aggressive business sector, they just completely vore the entire market sector in hopes of gaining total control, shits weird.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Monopoly is a super profitable and comfortable position, but it’s when capitalism fails.

              …wish I hadn’t looked up vore…

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Dude literally broke the law, and then settled to avoid paying for acquiring fees.

      That sounds really tame compared to nowadays.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        it’s tame, except we’re talking like, literally stealing a piece of software or it’s design blatantly, settling, and then acquiring the rights in the settlement for much cheaper than they would at market rates.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s not his problem that they settled for so little though.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            he shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place, but that’s not the problem of the small business.

            I mean there are literally three options here, purchase it from the business legally. Which costs shit tons of money, or steal it. And then deal with it after the fact, which is what they did, and it saved MS lots of money, while probably fucking yeeting the small business.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well duh. I’m just saying it’s really tame compared to nowadays.

              Also I personally don’t really care too much about copyright.

  • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

      • endofline@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nah, she knew about his husband and Epstein ( and his at least strange occupation ) far lower than she’s wiling to admit.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      It wasn’t hidden. Everybody knew back in the day what an evil piece of shit he was.

      It has just been forgotten about and many current adults weren’t old enough, or even around, in the heyday of his evil empire, so he has been able to whitewash his image. My 50 year old ass remembers though. Fuck Bill Gates.

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Bill Gates was a huge piece of shit in his heyday, rivalling the Zuckerberg and Musks of today, and Jobs was an abusive narcissist shitcunt on a surface level.

    Tom and Zuckerberg both came from the same time. Zuck was shit since day 1, today has nothing to do with it.

    I think you just have some very rose tinted glasses.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s hard to beat ignoring doctors and not treating your very treatable form of cancer, then using your wealth to get a liver transplant and then dying anyway. Dude committed manslaughter because of his own arrogance.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Bill Gates was a huge piece of shit in his heyday, rivalling the Zuckerberg and Musks of today,

      Bill Gates was a ruthless businessman destroying competition but as far as I know he didn’t support fascists or facilitate pogroms.

      Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has done far more harm to our societies than whatever shady tactics Bill Gates used.

      • uzay@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not to take away from Zuckerberg, Musk, and the less-known people in tech like Thiel, but Bill Gates was and is a huge piece of shit who harmed more than just his competitors. Among other things he convinced the world that we need IP and patents for covid vaccines instead of sharing them freely, which alone cost countless lives around the world. I don’t even want to know what other ills his “philanthropy” has and will cause. https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-global-access-covid-vaccines

      • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Gates and Jobs both are responsible for consumer based computing. Proprietary software lynched what should have been a global birth of inventive software engineers.

        The crap that Zuck shills had its groundwork laid by those two.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Proprietary software lynched what should have been a global birth of inventive software engineers.

          That actually happened. Just wasn’t perpetuated after 1995 or something.

    • Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Adding to that, Bill Gates put quite some effort into image building and mostly succeeded.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s easier to name the people who have been decent in tech. Woz seems like a decent guy.

      Ted Waite all in all was decent. Not perfect but decent.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Stallman is a notable figure in the industry but he was never the leader of a large tech company. That’s probably why he’s a decent guy

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The FSF isn’t exactly what you think of when you hear the words “large tech company”… but you could argue that in some ways it is one couldn’t you… 😁😛

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            He was a big defender of paedophilia, necrophilia, incest, and bestiality. He thinks people should have the right to fuck their pets or their children. Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

            Stallman is an incredible steward of FOSS, but he is not a decent guy overall.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Let’s note that necrophilia with mutual agreement (pre-mortem, and same with cannibalism) and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended. Animals can’t consent, children can’t consent, so not that.

              Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

              That - yeah.

              But I guess it’s another sobering reminder of why celebrity worship is bad. I see way too many people try to bury or deny his scummy side, just because they worship him as a FOSS celebrity figure.

              Believing in discourses and narratives without understanding that they are never real is bad.

              You can believe only in what you see with your own eyes since inception and till death.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended.

                Why are you saying between adults, as if that’s what he said? He was talking about children. I even provided multiple examples of him saying so.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah, for me too. Because I love practically everything he says when it comes to software.

                “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

                RMS on June 28th, 2003

                “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”

                RMS on June 5th, 2006

                "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

                RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

                In the interest of fairness, he did claim to have changed his mind on some of this, although that only happened 2 days after his job became on the line after making strange comments about Epstein.

                For me, suddenly having a change of heart on a decades-held (and publicly-championed) opinion, only to suddenly change your mind the second it threatens your job seems a bit too convenient, so I’m unwilling to believe it.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  as long as no one is coerced

                  Well, the opinion that a child can consent is technically acceptable, because the line at 12,13,14,16,18,21 years is arbitrarily drawn which is why it differs in various countries.

                  But in practice he should have used common sense and at least drawn his own line.

                  “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”

                  That’s scary, but I’m not sure how really wrong he is. The issue is again with child’s consent being less certain, affected more easily by various distractions.

                  so I’m unwilling to believe it.

                  So am I, the question is whether he has internal consistency or not in his views. If yes, it’s still better than, well, just being a jerk and proud of it.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I would say it’s not a sincere change. It’s groupthink.

                  Well the skit keeps getting smaller and smaller

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Before Microsoft, programmers were treated like factory workers by HP and IBM and setup in large open floor rooms like a secretary pool from the 1960’s. Gates thought programmers were important and gave every programmer a private office.

      Gates did dirty tricks to competitors even to tiny ones they could have bought out (stacker). But he was never Musk’s level of evil.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • kfchan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Steve Jobs decided to kill himself by being an idiot.

      So…there was a redemption arc there.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not a fan of Hitler Steve Jobs, but I am a big fan of the guy who killed Hitler Steve Jobs.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yes but Steve Jobs also bought himself a pointless liver transplant that someone else didn’t get. One he would have never needed if he had listened to doctors instead of trying to treat a very treatable kind of cancer with a diet. So while he did the world a favor, he also took someone with him on the way out.

    • mle@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Larry Ellisons Oracle gobbled up many great companies and open source projects and sucked the life out of them, such as Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice, MySQL to name just a few

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Larry Ellison bought up his competitors and jack up prices on databsae products owning the industry for more than a decade.

      It’s well known that ORACLE is an acronym for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Gates was always a dirtbag.

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

    • ginza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe a hot take or I’m not education on him enough. Seems like Gates is a great guy personally with his fundraisers and charitable programs. But as a business man he is awful because of the reasons you mentioned.

      • finestnothing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Donations and fundraisers are tax deductible, it doesn’t actually cost the rich anything to donate to them

      • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Philanthropy is PR for billionaires. If we taxed them, we would have a social safety net and no need for their pet projects.

      • theparadox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fundraisers and charities, when you have a lot money, are rarely acts of charity. They tend to be PR campaigns and power plays.

        Honestly, even when the acts have good intentions, they are often quite damaging. The involvement of the wealthy in charity is very similar to their involvement in politics. Their wealth buys influence and gives them a disproportionate say that allows them to ignore and overrule the will of the people and sometimes even reality.

        For example, look into the impact of Bill Gates’s “acts of charity” in the education space. He poured money into charter programs that negatively impacted public education. Later studies showed that his programs were not particularly effective.

        Let’s say, hypothetically, that a very rich person is convinced by some charlatan that they found the a means to produce free energy. The wealthy person throws tons of money at the idea. How many talented people will be taken from other legit programs because the paycheck at Bullshit Energy Nonprofit is better? These rich people are successful and think they know bestr. Their money ensures they get treated like experts because money makes things happen whether or not those things are helpful.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        fundraisers and charitable programs

        I’m pretty sure most of that is tax-deductible.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        He was instrument in keeping the covid vaccine he promoted private. He wants to solve the world’s problems, but he also wants to own the solution and profit from it. Problem is, that model will always favor the rich.

        • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yep, also basically stole from the UK taxpayer by convincing Oxford University to not open source their publicly funded vaccine and instead sell the rights to AstraZenica.

          All sorts of countries could have produced this vaccine themselves until Bill Gates got involved.

      • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Dude was friends with Epstein after his first conviction for pedophilia. Had sleepovers at his mansions and shit.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Reyali@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      My dad wrote software in the 90s and developed a pretty good name for his business. He once got a call from Microsoft saying they wanted to package his software in their newest OS builds. Holy crap, right?! That would be a major break!

      They told him they needed to do some deep interviews to set the plan in motion. I can’t remember if there were supposed to be 4 calls total or if it was on the 4th call, but after a couple conversations my dad realized the questions they were asking were to reverse engineer his software. They were never trying to make a deal; they were trying to learn what they could so they could rewrite it and not pay him a dime. He told them to pound sand.

      There were a few other conflicts he had with Microsoft. I was young and didn’t understand it well, but my whole childhood I knew Bill Gates led a shady as fuck company and thought he was an awful POS. It honestly still kills me to admit that he (now) does some good in this world.

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t ever remember Bill Gates or Steve Jobs being good people. Or Jeff Bezos, trying to kill bookstores.

    The guys behind Google seemed okay at first and I think they really wanted to do good. But the way the company culture was built was toxic.

    But in the end it’s all about the greed. As soon as a company becomes public and whose stocks become available on the market, it turns to shit.

    Look at how Steam is going well and actually helping personal computing progress. Gabe Newell is doing a great job because he loves that he does and ensures the people who work for him do too.

    • Ashtear@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Newell also has overseen Valve as one of the pioneers of the most predatory monetization in the video game industry (lootboxes, etc.).

      There are no saints at this level.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean their unwillingness to do anything about the market abuse and rampant child-gambling aside, the lootboxes for purely cosmetic items are one of the least predatory ways to do microtransactions. It’s not like EA where the only way to unlock entire characters in some games is to grind for hundreds of hours or pay, or like COD where they took the lootbox idea and made it actually affect (multiplayer) gameplay

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          the least predatory ways to do microtransactions

          Damning with faint praise.

      • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        TBF to Valve, their lootboxes were limited to cosmetic items in a free to play multiplayer games. You can ignore those and it wouldn’t change the gameplay at all.

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      And if not that, then the inverse applies: People who end up the wealthiest and most powerful do so by being the best at exploiting other people and systems.

      There’s a reason there are more and more sociopaths and narcissists the higher you get in a corporate structure, and its because such people truly do not care about the harm they cause, unless they get caught.

  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

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

  • JackDark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah we’re baffled about how kids get sucked into worshipping Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, but I remember a brief time in my life when I thought Steve Jobs was the greatest and that he singlehandedly invented the iPhone with a rusty pair of pliers and gumption.