I absolutely feel this. I quit my job at Microsoft because they were too complicit with Israel's crimes against humanity (posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925777). That left me looking for a job and I have one now, with a startup I like a lot and hasn't done anything unethical to the best of my knowledge. The investors have though. Most of the VC community is straight up fascist/supremacist/genocidal... our industry is sick and while no doubt there was always this underpinning (I just didn't see it or realize my on complicity), it feels like it's ratcheted up a lot in the last 5 or so years.
For the record I am with you and OP in the sense that I personally would struggle with such proximity. But the reality is that even if you do what I did and give up quite a bit of salary in exchange for something so mundane as the same work in a public university-run health system, you can still often follow the money to some ugly places that are not as far away as you'd like. Regarding startups, the ones like yours are probably the best one can realistically hope for, ideological inclinations of the founders aside
The world separates cleanly into those of us who could never knowingly and freely take any money from any fascist and those who would point out the generous meal plan bestowed upon the camp guards.
I have never been in the situation of knowingly taking salary from any fascist and would never tolerate it. I've left jobs I needed over this. My "walking away" was more about wanting to work on stuff in my day job that felt somewhat more worthwhile and tangibly useful to humanity
I grew up believing that capitalism somehow separates business from government, with each operating independently. Same with separation of church and state. Not sure what to think of things now.
Fascism is Capitalism's immune response. Under stress, whether real or imagined, the rich and thus powerful begin dismantling the very systems that made them that way, gambling that their existing positions of influence will ensure their own survival (whether economic or literal).
Capitalism only functions when you have people willing and able to buy your stuff, a state that protects fair dealings, and maintains a peaceful public order. It a luxury maintained by having a safe, stable society. Imagine trying to run a business in a world where the workers can just decide to cut you out of your investments, and then you have to hire PMCs to retake your factory, but then the PMCs renege on your contract and decide to run the business themselves. A society where you need to build your own roads, spread your own pro-business propaganda, and lack any recourse when your suppliers decide to take your money and run.
That's capitalism: owning capital attracts more capital, until eventually an all-powerful oligarchical class emerges that is then emboldened to dismantle the liberal democracy that built them, in order to secure their position at the top.
Hitler was sponsored by the industrialists of its nation. So was Mussolini. So is Putin. So is Trump.
"Capitalism is incompatible with democracy" is the one lesson I hope people finally learn by the end of this century.
Seems like an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with, as if "tech" were a monolith. Just don't work for the companies that cross your self-stated lines in the sand:
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
If you would like to contribute to the discussion then you can find one of the people called a fascist or white supremacist and contest the claim. Then someone can counter that claim, and dialogue can happen.
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities.
Sorry, but people are calling anyone who disagrees with them nazis or fascists so frequently that it is hard to take seriously anymore?
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility
You must have been living under a comfy rock the last few years since there are several communists - real ones, by their own say - in the running for positions in the "democratic" party. The coming elections will show whether they gain traction, if they do there is a real danger of communism forming in the USA.
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
OK, down-voter, be a man and tell me where you think I went wrong in my reasoning about the chances DSA-communists have in gaining a foothold or the danger of fascism gaining ground. Stop knee-jerking that down-vote button, tell us what you think - this is a discussion site after all, not a popularity contest or likes farm.
It's not complicated. The people in power in US are not hiding it. They want to dismatle democracy, take away peoples rights and freedoms. They are openly corrupted. They are laughing in your faces with hailing and nazy propaganda tactics.
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
I still don't understand how these people think they can achieve ultra right wing and unemployment through AI at the same time. Even Hitler didn't manage.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
So the author is just now, in 2026, getting where many conservatives in tech were in around 2018. Now, though, the author wants to occupy the moral high ground while tacitly suggesting Islam is swell. Good luck with all that.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
The question is, where are you going to go? Finance? Farming, Logistics? Writing/Literature/Philosophy? Big Pharma? All those people are funneling funds to people you find utterly objectionable. You'll find that every career/industry is probably proportionally representative of people who share your values as those who don't. Tech is is only so visible to you because you are so immersed in it. Care less about "Tech" and more about your family/community/friends.
I'm slowly making my way out of tech and going into food preparation for the poor. I previously thought working at one of these companies to extract as much money from them as possible so that I could provide as many meals to the poor as possible using that money was the best thing to do. I'm less sure about that today.
I'm sure that some of the people I work with at food banks are homophobic because they hold a particularly conservative version of their faith. I'm also sure that they aren't directly working with the government to cause material harm to marginalized people, which I cannot say about my current employer.
You can disagree with someone while still treating them the best they can. A Doctor shouldn't leave a patient mid-surgery simply because he found out he's an Anti-Vaxxer or votes a certain way.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
A doctor refusing to heal a bigot is not even remotely the same thing as refusing to work for a megacorp because of their direct involvement in military action that kills children.
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
I think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.
If I had more time, I might elaborate on the fact that both the author and those he criticizes are children of the Enlightenment. I mention this, because it has a great deal of relevance. Neither Promethean Techno-Pelagianism on the one hand nor Socio-Voluntaristic Manichaeism on the other present a great vision of the good, whatever validity we can find in their criticisms.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
I felt this article, minus the conclusion, perhaps. There is something profoundly rotten going on. Used to be that you had to keep the quiet part to yourself. Now you can espouse white supremacy and enjoy broad social capital. Everyone at the top appears to have agreed that, yeah, fascism-lite is actually kind of convenient from a capitalist perspective, and they’re enabling anyone who helps spread that ethos. Meanwhile half of our industry is at best apathetic.
‘You can use Omarchy without caring about DHH’s politics,’ explained one of my colleagues. And he’s kind of right. Death of the author – that sort of thing. But using it also lends credibility to the maker, who can point at their project’s popularity as an indirect sign of vindication of their ideology. Hence, as I see it, the only morally right choice is not to use it.
Regarding the conclusion, I wouldn’t leave. I see it as my duty to push back, even if the effect is woefully modest. We need to start reminding each other again that, no, this isn’t okay. In the office and online.
53 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 24.0 ms ] thread"Quite a bit of salary" like
Hitler was sponsored by the industrialists of its nation. So was Mussolini. So is Putin. So is Trump.
"Capitalism is incompatible with democracy" is the one lesson I hope people finally learn by the end of this century.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
The fact that the vast majority of people are not calling the same things fascist as OP is, tells me this seems to be a quite controversial opinion.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities.
You don't agree with my exact political views?! Then you are a fascist.
Also blatant fascism? By which definition? the OP article pretty much cites a single blog post as his evidence of DHH being a fascist; but never really defines fascism.
I get it DHH is not a very likeable guy, and a bit of a prick but calling him a fascist or taking childish jabs like calling Omarchy "vibecoded scripts on top of Arch" really removes a lot of credibility
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
[2] https://program.dsausa.org/
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
I wish China could host an HN clone so we could have free discussions.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
So, I hedge my bets and make contingency plans.
I'm sure that some of the people I work with at food banks are homophobic because they hold a particularly conservative version of their faith. I'm also sure that they aren't directly working with the government to cause material harm to marginalized people, which I cannot say about my current employer.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
Actions often speak louder than words.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
Taking a political litmus test to people is about divisive politics, not technology.
I'd flag this if my low karma account would let me.
‘You can use Omarchy without caring about DHH’s politics,’ explained one of my colleagues. And he’s kind of right. Death of the author – that sort of thing. But using it also lends credibility to the maker, who can point at their project’s popularity as an indirect sign of vindication of their ideology. Hence, as I see it, the only morally right choice is not to use it.
Regarding the conclusion, I wouldn’t leave. I see it as my duty to push back, even if the effect is woefully modest. We need to start reminding each other again that, no, this isn’t okay. In the office and online.