I worked for a non tech Fortune 500 company. It was fairly cult like. It didn't really bother me because my father and ex were both career military, so I considered the cult like elements evidence of how unimportant the work was. The military isn't cult like. You take things seriously because lives are on the line and national security is on the line. Having been around the military helped inoculate me against the cult like elements of corporate culture.

I had some sympathy for why it was that way. Building a very successful company is kind of like magic. We don't really know how it works, yet it is life giving. These people had well paid jobs because... Magic. And working there meant that when I made small talk while ordering food or getting a haircut, people oohed and aahed that I worked there at all. Not everyone could get in.

But my work as a military wife, without even being in the army, had been more important. For me, it was a step down in intensity. It was just a job. Meanwhile, coworkers often felt working there was the biggest thing that ever happened to them.

They:

* break you down in boot camp to build you up in their image, with their values (esp Marines)

* force you to accept teachings that are demonstrably false (source: friend went to nuclear engineering school, nearly got kicked out for pointing out flaws in how they taught nuclear theory).

* control where you live, where you sleep, what you eat

* indoctrinate you (onboarding at my base was literally called "indoc[trination]")

* bestow status for pleasing the leaders of the cult (the career game)

Personally, I think the indoc makes service members believe lives and national security are on the line. Anymore, I believe the biggest threat to our country (and thus the lives of those who protect it) is ourselves.

I don't disagree this can be effective, but strongly believe the military is a cult.

It seems to me hippies who see the biggest threats as internal are always a product of a secure environment. I suspect such attitudes don't thrive in places with war on the ground. America has never had a major invasion in terms of amount of land invaded. We seem particularly prone to this idea that war happens elsewhere and is not a real and serious threat.

Regardless, my comment wasn't intended to be judgemental, I apologize if it came off that way. I just wanted to point out the similarities between effective cult leadership and military indoctrination, but should have been more clear that I was speaking more academically.

Just because you don't personally experience it doesn't mean that it's not happening. If there is data to show that people are being marginalized in the bay area, then odds are it's happening even if you haven't seen it yourself.

I've been in SV for 15 years, and one (out of four) companies has been incredibly cult-like. The exec team, and CEO in particular, often espoused how we were going to change the world of $INDUSTRY forever. Any talk of existential problems was met with accusations of disloyalty. People who were even thinking about leaving or interviewing elsewhere were viewed as disloyal and got "the talk" from the CEO or CTO.

Over two decades, and the cult-like trappings are reinforced by the media to be sure. Maybe even originate there.

You're focusing on one small part of the article though. How do you feel about suggestions that you stay healthy, have friends that are not wrapped up in tech, have a life outside of The Company, etc.?

I think there was a lot to agree with.

> And of course (almost) each startup CEO thinks his (or her) startup is going to change the world, or at least some part of it. That's how you should think if you're getting into a startup, otherwise it's not worth the trouble, the stress and the extremely high chance of failure.

I don't think this should be an "of course". This article highlights toxic tech culture, namely a culture found in tech that is toxic. Marketing is not specific to tech, nor are small businesses. Why does Uber tell me they're going to "make transportation as freely available as running water" but not Loreal's new shampoo? Why does the small chain of bike repair shops in my area, also taking the stress and high risk of starting their own business, not exhort about how their bike repair shop will change the world of bikes forever?

This overboard marketing and out-of-touch mission statements are much more commonly found in tech than in elsewhere. This article discusses a culture formed by overboard marketing and out-of-touch mission statements and labels it as toxic. Moreover, there's an argument to be made about a field that oft labels itself as "meritocratic" relies on these hyperbolic forms of marketing and mission statements to do business, rather than a more traditional, "stodgy" business.

> Why does the small chain of bike repair shops in my area, also taking the stress and high risk of starting their own business, not exhort about how their bike repair shop will change the world of bikes forever?

Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? ;) Maybe not, who knows. The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. And one day somebody might just do that.

> Moreover, there's an argument to be made that a field that oft labels itself as "meritocratic" relies on these hyperbolic forms of marketing and mission statements to do business, rather than a more traditional, "stodgy" business.

You can't really rely on mission statements and marketing to do business. At least not in any long term. And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would). But claiming it's a defining property of significant part of SV companies to be overblown marketing only is just false.

I didn't claim this. However, there's no correlation between sexist marketing and sexist work culture. On top of this, writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules. Two wrongs don't make a right.

> Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now?

Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? If so, then we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye in this discussion. I do not think that hyperbolic marketing is a necessary condition to success.

> The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever.

Indeed, but there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world. If 500 intelligent, aware people are all convinced that they are going to change the world then, well I'm interested in whatever kool-aid they're drinking and how. Moreover, you seem to be implying that founders actually believe their mission statements. I'm going to rebut and say no, most founders use the mission statement as another form of marketing.

> And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do.

But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc.

> Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would)

While this is a slightly different issue than the one discussed in the article, I'd like to reply to this. Behind each of these pure hype Silicon Valley companies are VCs who actually invested in them, who wrote them checks of $10,000+ that believed in the hype and marketing potential of these startups. This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.

Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world".

> Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug?

I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that.

> there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world

There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world.

> But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc.

Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point?

> This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.

High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.

It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread.

> I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity.

I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not.

> So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world.

Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling.

> Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point?

Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here.

> There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games.

Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.

I have no idea. How would you know? And then, who cares - if they do change the world, it doesn't matter if they really really wanted it or jus kinda, and if they don't, truly nobody cares.

> If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields.

Vast majority of startups also don't make claims about changing the world. In fact, we, on average, know absolutely nothing about vast majority of startups, because there's just too many of them. Everybody knows about Juicero, because that's in the press, but nobody knows about 10000 non-Juiceros. If you want to discuss the hyped ones - then let's not lose the focus.

> Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding.

If people with funding make decision on whether somebody uses rhetoric or not, only, then the rhetoric is not a problem. But frankly, I don't believe it. People who professionally invest money are not stupider than you or me, if you can see it, they can see it. So I don't think "we're too honest with our rhetoric and too beautiful for this cruel world" is a real industry-wise problem. Lack of communicative or marketing skills to clearly explain the idea behind the startup may very well be, but that's a different one.

> Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games

Wait, so the whole problem is that there's no Big Dude from Big Government overseeing it and protecting poor investors from themselves? The the whole thing is even less substance than I expected. I think exploitation of angel investor billionaires by overhyped startups is not the problem we should be too worried about, and probably not in the first 1000 of the problems that our society faces.

Could I ask you (and hopefully, others) for a few examples of SV startups that have, in your opinion, changed the world?

I would like to impose some criteria however - and I don't know if you'll agree with them. I'll number them for easy reference but you don't have to respond with a respectively numbered list. You might contest my criteria, of course.

1. The change brought on must contribute to the wellbeing of a wider community, i.e., not just to the bottom line of the company. This is probably an obvious requirement.

2. The change must be a clear net benefit to the community. For instance, if a firm is selling millions of a device that "make the world a better place" but these millions of devices end up as unrecyclable garbage soon after, that's not an obvious net benefit- it's doing some good here, some harm there and it's hard to tell which is bigger. I think we should be able to agree on this being a reasonable requirement, too.

3. The change must not fulfill a need that didn't exist beforehand. For instance, insurance is not strictly needed until one is offered the opportunity to buy some, at which point there is a (conditional) benefit that was never expected before it.

4. The change must not fulfill a need that was adequately satisfied beforehand. For instance -this might be controversial- a smartphone fulfills the need of "communication" but people could communicate just fine without smartphones. Uber fulfills the need of transportation, but people had transportation long before Uber; etc.

I'm asking you specifically because you seem to believe that SV firms really want to change the world. I agree with Karrot_Kream that it's just marketing. So I am interested to hear why you think this.

1. What you mean by "wellbeing"? A company - outside of government investment, like defense company - can only exist if people pay for their product. If they voluntarily pay for it, doesn't it mean they want it? Or are you allowed to argue that they may want it, but you think they shouldn't so it doesn't qualify as wellbeing? If so, you basically define what "wellbeing" is and I can't hope to guess what it is.

2. Again, what is "net benefit" - how you count it? I know one way, see above. You probably know about it too, and yet added two separate special requirements - so you probably have something else in mind. Again, it would be hard for me to see what.

3. Why not? I didn't have an urge to learn Spanish until I learned about Duolingo and an urge to learn about variety of subjects until I read Coursera catalog. It just didn't come to my attention it's possible for me to do it that easily. Now I can. We can go further - before air travel existed, I'd probably never thought I want to visit another continent. Now I know I do. Does it mean air travel didn't change the world? Of course it did.

4. What is "adequately"? Obviously, if people are paying money for the new provider, they find something in it that wasn't covered by the old provider. Again, you can claim people "don't need it" - like, they don't need smartphones, just sending ravens to each other and occasionally having a maester write a long letter is perfectly fine, but who decides that? You do. And I can't hope to match your criteria here. Of course, people lived lives in 600 BC, and by all indications were not hellishly unhappy, at least most of them, so should we claim all that happened since was unnecessary and didn't really change the world? Makes no sense to me.

> examples of SV startups that have, in your opinion, changed the world?

OK, here are some examples that made the world be different for me. Note I don't consider how good the change was and how good are the companies at day-to-day operations, only whether they did something that changed something in a big way. And I only consider relatively new companies, e.g. IBM won't qualify even if they invent time travel. Also, I do not discuss Google, because a) obvious, b) not a startup for a while.

Twitter. I mean, US president is using it and everybody in the world is jumping around it. You may not like it, but you have to admit this is happening. It's a different world now.

Square. The enablement of small businesses driven by it is phenomenal. And it certainly changes my patterns of behavior - I no longer need to run around looking for ATM (or, in many cases, just not patronize that particular business because it's too much trouble).

Yelp. Completely changed how people choose where to eat and who to hire and so on.

Uber. Changed the world for me - now in any city on the planet that has Uber I can be sure I can get whereever I want. Bus broke down? Train has 2 hour delay? Car in the shop and I need to go somewhere right now? I know what to do. Yes, taxis existed before - and my experience with them sucked (once I was stranded in the middle of pretty large US city and was told by dispatcher no cabs are available in the next hour or so. I had to call the only person I knew in the whole city - which was barely an acquaintance - and beg him to take me to the hotel. Very unpleasant).

Facebook. It is criticized a lot, and deservedly. But I now am talking to people that I literally haven't seen for decades. Yes, it's not "real" talking like sitting in the same room etc. This would probably never happen - we are too far from each other, and too busy, and too... well, a lot of things, but at least we're not 100% disconnected as it would be before.

Automattic. This is the company behind WordPress, which made publishing accessible to common people. Now everybody can do what in the past only major newspapers and writers could do.

Coursera (also Udemy) - not unique, but hugely game-changing thing, you can now get an several degrees worth of education completely free, not leaving your home and needing nothing but an internet connection. Of course, yes, getting a formal degree in a college has its benefits, but now it's not the only way.

BitTorrent (along with predecessors, copycats, etc.). This can be arguable whether it's good or bad, but the way that content is consumed online has been changed forever when peer-sharing networks appeared.

Netflix, as a complement to the above. Changed how people consume entertainment, and more. I mean, netflix and chill, right?

Mozilla - without it existing, Internet probably would be owned by Microsoft now, and Chrome would have much chance to happen either because everybody would think there's no chance to beating Microsoft there.

Apple, of course, may not qualify as a startup, but deserves a honorable mention by making the concept of smartphone finally work. One can argue that'd happen even without them, but somebody would have done it, and mobile computing has changed the world, and Apple took a huge part in it.

Wikipedia (not your regular "startup", but can be seen as part of SV) - need I explain anything here?

Of course, the geographic criterion here - only SV ones - is kinda limiting and arbitrary, but I guess it's a decent sample anyway. And probably missed a lot of viable candidates, it's just a list that I could make without starting a doctoral thesis on it.

Apologies- I was looking for the word "benefit". I'm not a native English speaker and sometimes I get word-blocks like that, where I just can't find the exact word I want.

The questions you ask though, work with both "wellbeing" and "benefit". If I understand the first one correctly, you're basically asking: if people are buying a product, who am I to arbitrarily decide that it's not beneficial to them?

Well, of course there is no completely objective way to determine what is "beneficial" to people. However, individuals and societies make decisions like that all the time, because decisions have to be made about what's good and what's bad for people and for members of the society. If there's no way to objectively rule what's good or bad, then we just use our morals and our cultural bias and wing it- and hope that our subjective decision is ultimately close to the goal of making things better for most, rather than worst.

Here's an example: opiate use. Opiates are addictive and damaging to the social life and the health of addicts. Most nations basically ban them except for medical use. We could argue that, if people wish to pay for opiates and are happy with their use, then who are we to say that they are harmful, or in any case not beneficial to them? Well, it's not a cut-and-dry thing but, most communities seem to have -subjectively- decided that opiates are harmful and therefore should be controlled. You're not likely to see a startup disrupting the opiates market to make the world a better place becoming very popular, any time soon.

The alternative to attempting to use one's moral compass to decide what's beneficial and what's harmful, is basically to wash one's hands of the whole question, hiding behind the impossibility of absolute moral evaluations. Which may be rational- but not reasonable, or responsible.

How do you count the "net benefit" I'm describing. In this case, because we're talking about technology, there are some objective rules, namely the contribution of the technology to environmental damage. For instance, cars take you places, but they also contribute to climate change and general atmospheric pollution. In fact, here, the need for mechanised transportation is the intangible value and the environmental damage is the measurable one.

Why shouldn't the change fulfill a need that didn't exist beforehand? Because then the change is hard to measure. Air travel changed the world, sure, but at the beginning the difference to speeds with then-fastest modes of transport was probably small. We can look at air travel today and say "it changed the world" but about 200 years have gone by since air travel became a possibility and the world has changed anyway. It's hard to tell exactly how much it changed because of air travel and how much it would have changed without it.

What is meant by "adequately"? This again is about looking at changes that are easy to measure (and to agree on). You mention people changing providers. For me this is a very difficult change to evaluate (and many of the people who change providers probably do so on spurious grounds, like advertisment, anyway). We had telephones before we were able to carry them around in our pockets and the same goes for computers who can also make phone calls. Why is it so important that I can now carry a small phone - computer in my pocket? How has that benefited me, and does the magnitude of the benefit justify the economics of making those devices?

So basically what I was driving at is that it's not enough to describe a startup as "changing the world"- because you can change the world by tiny degrees, without really benefiting anyone and even cause some harm in the process. Just speaking of "change" is not enough to justify such investment in tech, let alone the self-aggrandising marketing of startups in the Valley. It has to be a big change and it has to be the good kind of change, or they have to tone down their advertisement (or look a bit silly).

The point of the discussion I guess is to what extent "changing the world" is marketing and to what extent it is a reasonable claim to make.

Of the examples you give of startups (etc) that changed the world, I would agree with two: Wikipedia and Coursera. The rest, to my mind at least, are companies that primarily benefited themselves and the change they brought to the world was not really necessary. I hope my criteria -and my clarifications to them, in this comment- are sufficient to explain why I think so.

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail.

I would rephrase this to "tech is not exempt from the bad aspects mentioned in the article."

> So is the message of the article "bad things in tech were bad and that's why I left"? OK, it's nice to know, not exactly anything new but everybody has the right for one's own biography. Is there any insight there beyond that? One that pertains specifically to tech world?

If my house and my neighbors house are on fire, should I still not get out of the house?

Startups do often seem to have an unusual percentage of people drinking their own marketing kool-aid.

If you want to avoid it, I'd suggest working at a startup in an unsexy-to-tech-people industry like marketing or advertising. But then you may have other issues, in terms of how you feel about your work.

may be not having such a vision is a reason why they aren't going to change the word of bikes forever. In the beginning was the Word ...