Democrats turned on Elon during covid, as he was against lockdowns. This spread into wide distrust and complete sidelining and antagonism towards tech during the Biden administration. You can hear about it from Ben and Marc on their a16z podcast, when they explained why they are endorsing Trump.

This was despite the tech community being predominantly democrats. They turned to Trump, because the democrats shut them out completely and in some cases were highly antagonistic (crypto and elon companies).

Two out of 535 easily meets the definition of "practically none".

And maybe a few more, so maybe around 1%

Can you vote for them?

To be honest, I'm more aligned with you than with the left at the moment. I feel there's been a knee-jerk reaction from a wave of massive change coming and the efforts are being directed to the wrong place.

For example: I don't agree that we should be curtailing the data center buildup, it bothers me because it's almost a stance of conservatism. While I do agree there's a need to closely monitor the situation with how AI develops, since in case it does pan out that it can, in a 5-10 years time frame, dislodge a big mass of labour without leaving room for those unemployed by a radical change it will create a lot of social strife.

I'm more in the camp of caution, and planning on how to address the scenarios that could be most damaging, while I also understand there's no stopping when the machinery gets going as it is, we can only work around it to adapt to a new reality.

> This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back.

But most businesses do tend to go towards "bad" (if we define it as showing no empathy towards their damages to society) because those are the incentives, being "good" has very little financial incentive, and financial incentives are absolute king in this era of hyperfinancialised capitalism. The incentives for creating good products only exist to manage finances, not out of a desire to create good products as a benefit in itself which as a consequence will sell well. If there's a way to increase revenue while minimising attrition of the customer base, even in detriment of a great product, it will be done, because the incentives are there for that.

I think we probably agree more than disagree, my belief is that we have wrong incentives if this is the system we will continue living under. I also believe we can continuously improve it, there's no end game in sight for the "perfect system", it's all experimentation and we ought to take into account the results of these experiments after 20-40 years, and be rational about what works and what doesn't. Whatever was the world in the 1980s when this era of hyperfinancialisation started is not the world in 2026, whomever was the winner of that change wants to keep the status quo because it benefits them while we do see fractures and issues arising from that.

There's a balance to be made, and it will always go against the interests of past winners who will try to pitch the world as it is as the best it can be, and that more of whatever was done to make them winners is the only way forward.

Which is why I exactly pointed out that "finding the line" should be a iterative process, it's just natural the pendulum will swing for correcting past mistakes.

I don't know why you assumed I'm stating as if finding where these regulations lie to be a static thing, I thought I left a lot of nuance so this tired line wouldn't be played against the core of my argument... I didn't assume the current regulations are perfect, nor that there can be a perfect line, but that the process of finding this should exist, and that the answer will never lie in either extreme.

Hope it's even clearer now.

Edit: and also, "ideological" is a non-sequitur, even the criticism of it as you've done is ideological in nature...