Hot take:

I assume the author wrote this with the expectation that much of the readsherp gasp, and react with "the natural horror all right thinking folk would have in response to violence of any kind."

Sorry, lol, no.

The appropriate question for "all right thinking" folk is very different: if argumentation has no impact and it's obvious that it shall have none—what other avenue do you expect opponents, who take the risks seriously, to take...?

That's not a rhetorical question.

To put it bluntly: the machinery of contemporary capitalism, especially as practiced by our industry, very clearly leaves no avenue.

How many days ago was Ronan Farrow here doing an AMA on his critique of Altman—whose connection to this specific community is I assume common knowledge...?

How many of you have carried, or worked beneath, the banner, move fast and break things...?

What message does that ethos convey, about their the extent to which "tech" is going respect community standards, regulation—the law?

And on the other edge: what does this ethos enshrine about how best to accomplish one's aims?

One of the bigger domestic stories this past week which has inflamed a certain side of Reddit, is the "disgruntled employee torches warehouse" one.

Consider also—and I'm deadly serious—the broader frame narrative we are all laboring within today: that the new contract of the capitalist class—including and perhaps especially those in "tech," e.g. in the Peter Thiel circles—seems very much to be, "social stability via surveillance and a police state, rather than through equity and discourse."

When code is law, the law is buggy.

When there is no recourse through the law, you get violence.