[hn_throwaway_99]

> I did not interpret it as hubris.

I mean, he refers to the "passively conventional minded" as "sheep". Whether or not that's true, it's still dripping with condescension.

I agree with the parent commenter. I largely agree with PG's essay, but it's also telling that he doesn't see (or at least, doesn't comment) on any potential negatives from "aggressive independently minded" folks. If anything, a lot of the current backlash I see in the technology realm is where entrepreneurs and "visionaries" promised us enlightenment and the world, but it didn't quite work out that way. The pitch for social media was that it was supposed to bring the world closer and let people develop more and stronger relationships. Yeah, how'd that turn out...

[clomond]

Very good point, missed that.

I suppose re: your social media point (I have long ago soured on most of it personally) that, rather than ridding away and decrying the negatives with tech and social media as a result of progress, really what needs to happen is social media needs its own set of reforms in order to have its “supposed vision” be actualized.

The route of addicting users for increased “engagement” while optimizing for nothing else has successfully poisoned the well of good intentions (and possibilities). But still, and this relates to the heart of the essay itself: I believe the path to solve this is by moving forward, making the systems better (or providing new ones). Rather than rejecting them outright. But maybe that is the raging optimist in me talking.

[Qworg]

Also, there are wolves in both of the "aggressive" camps - people who would acquire power by any means necessary, no matter the costs to others. It is very hard to draw the line between "failed visionary" and "power hungry manipulator".