Going back decades, there’s been a faction in Silicon Valley whose chief interest was not coding, consumer technology or even business, but power. In some ways, the story of the last ten years of the tech industry has been the story of that faction, perhaps best embodied by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, but also represented by figures like Marc Andreessen and figures like Alex Karp, Palmer Luckey, and David Sacks, winning the power they sought. The consequences of that victory have been disastrous. Gil Duran, a veteran journalist and California political operative, is the author of the Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy, a book about how, exactly, this disaster has unfolded, and where it’s left us. That is, with a tech industry that’s overwhelmingly eager to abet, enable, and profit from authoritarian governments, by wielding power within them, and by building its tools of surveillance, automation, and extraction. Duran calls the key bloc driving this push ‘tech fascists’, and many have openly called for an end to democracy, or for rule by monarch—or CEO. And it is hard to overstate the import of the ascendency of the tech right. These figures now have a direct line to the White House, have one of their own in the White House in former VC JD Vance, and are often in the White House themselves. They hold massive government contracts and their unprecedented hoards of lobbying cash influence shapes public policy, in addition to controlling much of the digital architecture that guides our daily lives. The results of all this are everywhere you look. This is, yes, how you get DOGE running wild in the federal government, laying off hundreds of thousands of civil servants and pulling USAID funding for the most vulnerable, leaving people dead as a result. It’s how you get the widespread cronyism and corruption in Washington, with government figures embracing crypto and the AI industry and enriching themselves in the process. It’s also how you get tech CEOs rising into a class that more resembles an oligarchy than the mere ultra-wealthy. One reason Facebook and Meta have operated with such impunity over the years is that Peter Thiel helped Mark Zuckerberg structure his company in such a way that he would retain ‘supervoting shares’ and would be unaccountable to a board of directors or anyone else. Just this week, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei announced he would be doing the same; he will essentially be impervious to boardroom dissent or activist shareholders. This means, for instance, that as Claude users revolt over fears that the company’s new watermarking process—which was an important win for everyone who opposes the internet being coated in slop, and the mass deskilling of creative workers—will out them as AI spammers, it will ultimately be up to Amodei himself to decide what to do, and no one else. Members of what Duran calls the Nerd Reich then use their power to further concentrate wealth, and of course, more power. A report by the AFL-CIO’s executive pay watch found this week that Elon Musk’s Tesla pay in 2025—he took home $158 billion—was an astonishing 2.5 million times his average workers’ salary. As the lead researcher on the report told Fortune, it’s ‘unlike anything we have seen before.’ Tech CEOs operating at such a distance from ordinary people may also explain why they’re so willing to undertake practices and push products that large swaths of the public absolutely hates. We already well know that data center opposition is the single political issue most Americans are united against, and that Gen Z is vehemently anti-AI. But consider also Meta’s marquee new product—”AI glasses” that allow users to film people without their consent, and that have already been dubbed “pervert glasses” by the masses. Just this week, Futurism published a report about how the glasses are being used by bullies in schools to harass their peers, especially girls. The bullies are apparently aping tactics seen on viral videos, in which pickup artists film women they’re hitting on without consent; hence the pervert glasses name. This is perhaps, providing fuel for another future lawsuit—this week Meta goes to court against twenty-nine US state attorneys general who accuse the company of knowingly designing addictive products that harm the mental health of children. They’re seeking $200 billion in damages. It might also explain why tech CEOs are willing to scan and destroy books en masse to feed them into their AI systems, despite the horror most people experience when they hear about such a practice. In, a story that’s almost too on the nose for a segment discussing the Nerd Reich, 404 Media had a rare bookseller put an AirTag in a rare book bought by a mystery buyer, and it wound up in an Amazon Facility expressly designed to scan and mulch books to train the company’s large language models. At the very same time, meanwhile, AI-generated books are flooding Amazon’s online marketplace, and crowding out real authors, who are earning less and less for their own, human-authored books. As a result of all of the above, there is a powerful, enraged backlash growing against the nascent tech oligarchs, multibillionaire AI CEOS, and the Nerd Reich; whatever you’d like to call them. I’ve been covering the tech sector for nearly two decades now, and I’ve never seen anything like this. People are shouting down big tech reps and data center proponents at public meetings. Flock, the private provider of police surveillance equipment, has been under siege for months; a national week of action against their product, ALPRs, is underway right now, as I record this. A survey conducted by CNBC found that young people aged 18-34 found tech CEOs overwhelmingly untrustworthy. “Young People Hate AI CEOs So Passionately That It’s Almost Hard to Believe,” as Futurism put it. Even Elon Musk’s own AI bot, Grok, has appeared to turn against him, accusing him of watching child porn and calling for his assassination on X. The tech elite may have the wealth, the influence, and the ear of the president, but not even that can insulate them from a growing mass movement, increasingly intent on taking them on. And we have every reason to think that what we’re seeing now is only the beginning. So that’s episode number 7? 8? depending on how you count? of the podcast in the bag there. I tried something a little different this time, trading the headline roundup/AI resistance digest in the beginning for more of a short essay/composed intro. Not sure which I prefer, tbh, though I did enjoy the chat with Duran, who has laid out the key strands of modern Silicon Valley’s dominating ideology in blunt and easily comprehensible terms, regardless. In fact, let me know what you think in general here. I’m happy with, and proud of, the work that I’ve put together here with my excellent producer Ryan Hodes. We’ve covered a lot of ground over the last couple of months, from checking in on the New Luddite movement and discussing their wildly successful Summer of Ludd in NYC, tried to answer the question of ‘What is an Elon Musk’ with author and historian Quinn Slobodian sat down with laid-off Xbox workers who are still organizing to fight back against their employer, Microsoft (this was, at least to me, such a powerful and impactful conversation) discussed the state of the AI bubble with the world’s leading (and loudest) industry bear, Ed Zitron dug into how AI and crypto companies are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the current election cycle to buy favor and influence with the great Molly White, and talked about how to de-Google our lives with tech critic extraordinaire Paris Marx. Anyway, every one of the guests have been great, in my humble and unbiased opinion, and I’ve enjoyed all these conversations. HOWEVER, getting the thing up and running has been a lot more legwork than anticipated. I feel like I’ve already written some variation of that sentence or another one just like it a time or two already, but it’s true. I never meant for the podcast to replace or crowd out the newsletter; it’s supposed to be the opposite. The show is supposed to augment the writing and reporting I do here, and amplify it in a new medium or two. But I admit I’ve gotten sucked into the show a bit, planning out future episodes, booking great guests, writing and editing scripts and intro copy, wrangling YouTube algorithms, trying to better understand podcast distribution, and so on. The good news is that attention seems to be paying off. After starting from scratch, the YouTube channel got over 100k views in its last period, which my YouTube-native producer tells me is good. The podcast is outpacing expectations as well, and is finding an audience even outside these pages, which was always the idea. And it’s all growing, with some big algorithmic bursts here and there and steady growth underneath. Yet I don’t want it to eat into my writing and reporting time so much; I don’t want to be a YouTube guy, ultimately. I want to be a guy whose writing people find on YouTube. I imagined a model of a) writing the newsletter, b) doing an abridged audio version of that plus updates on the general tech/AI resistance, criticism and backlash, plus c) having a conversation with a person or org in the thick of all of the above. And I do think after a couple months of ironing things out, we’ve hit on a format and workflow that will make that model more of a reality. So yes, I wrote a lot less over the last month or two (travel and dad stuff has played a minor role, too), but next week we’ll get the intended model rolling in earnest, with a piece planned for Tuesday publication, and we’ll see if we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Do let me know what you think of this whole experiment. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts, what you think is working an
