BURNING CHROME | Every ‘tech bro’ wants to rule the world

Silicon Valley in California was long romanticized as the crucible of innovation, a place where idealists and engineers imagined transforming the world through code, connectivity, and creativity. The “tech bro”, once slang for overconfident young men in startups, has evolved into something more ominous: a cultural and economic class whose power extends into politics, surveillance, and ideology—and whose agenda increasingly threatens democratic norms, privacy, and equality.

The term describes more than a programmer with swagger. It represents a cultural mindset: that technological progress is intrinsically good; that disruption excuses almost anything; that wealth validates value; and that labor rights, privacy, and government regulation are inconveniences, not protections. This identity is rooted in libertarian ideals but hardened by neoliberal economics, promoting the belief that private innovation should override public accountability. As one Programmable Mutter analysis put it, Silicon Valley elites often assume they are “exempt from rules that apply to everyone else.”

Suddenly, Silicon Valley is right… leaning right

Over recent years, many tech leaders (including those in the so-called ‘Magnificent Seven’ in big tech)—once associated with liberal values of openness and diversity—have tilted toward conservative or reactionary positions.

One reason is structural. The neoliberal order that nurtured tech’s rise—deregulation, light taxation on capital gains, minimal labor protections—fits the interests of tech entrepreneurs (at least in the U.S.). When global progressive movements demand oversight, antitrust enforcement, or stronger labor rights, tech elites view these as existential threats to their business model. A 2022 Data & Society essay described this as a shift from “disruption as innovation” to “disruption as political self-defense.”

There is also ideological capture. As Luc Lalande argued in Medium, Silicon Valley’s culture of “tech exceptionalism” fosters the idea that regulation hampers progress, rather than protecting society.

Finally, with concentration of wealth and influence, tech giants are no longer just selling devices—they shape policy, law, and media narratives. Platforms now control what speech is amplified or suppressed, often with minimal transparency. The political leanings of some high-profile investors and executives, widely reported in outlets such as Newsweek, illustrate how personal ideology can intersect with platform power to influence the broader discourse.

Here’s the thing, the agenda of tech bros is not hidden. It revolves around four priorities:

– Protecting and expanding their control over user data and algorithms.

– Reducing regulation on privacy, competition, and labor.

– Influencing policymaking in ways that shield their industries.

– Promoting the ideology that entrepreneurship and innovation alone can solve deep social problems.

As Shoshana Zuboff argued in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, this worldview treats individuals as raw material for behavioral prediction, commodifying human experience itself.

In fairness, but still…

To be fair, technology born of this culture has improved lives: instant communications, telemedicine, digital payments, and online platforms for marginalized voices. In the Philippines, e-wallets like GCash and Maya have expanded financial access, and e-commerce platforms connected small sellers to national markets.

But the cons are undeniable. Gig-economy apps have blurred labor rights. Algorithms curate what we see without accountability. Data centers and crypto operations consume vast energy. And monopolistic tendencies mean a few companies dominate the digital public square, determining which voices are heard.

Nowhere is this clearer than in privacy. Every click, location, and preference is harvested for targeting. In our country, The Philippines, the rollout of the SIM Registration Act, meant to combat scams, has sparked concerns about data protection and potential leaks. The National Privacy Commission (NPC) has repeatedly reminded telcos and platforms to secure sensitive information, yet breaches continue to make headlines.

Globally, predictive policing tools and facial recognition systems—covered by The Guardian and others—demonstrate how technology designed for efficiency can slip into surveillance. Locally, CCTV expansion tied with AI-based analytics in cities like Manila and Makati raises similar questions: who watches the watchers, and who benefits?

Do you feel safe?

The blunt answer is that users are vulnerable. From manipulation during elections to algorithmic bias in lending apps, harms are not hypothetical—they are happening. Legal scholar Frank Pasquale, in The Black Box Society, warned of opaque systems creating “zones of automated impunity.” That warning is relevant in Manila as much as in Mountain View, a city at the heart of Silicon Valley.

While the European Union’s GDPR provides some safeguards, our country’s data protection laws remain patchwork and underfunded. The NPC’s enforcement powers are often limited by resources. In a country where mobile penetration is high but digital literacy uneven, citizens are doubly exposed.

The tech bro agenda is inseparable from neoliberal capitalism. Neoliberalism champions deregulation, privatization, and shifting risk onto individuals. Tech thrives in this environment: light taxes, permissive labor policies, and open global talent markets. Yet, as political economist David Harvey observed, neoliberalism is not about shrinking the state—it is about reconfiguring state power to favor capital.

Again, in the Philippines, we see this clearly: public universities produce the tech workforce, government builds the digital infrastructure, yet much of the profit flows to private companies. E-commerce thrives on logistics networks partly subsidized by state programs, but gig workers shoulder the risks without benefits.

Should we follow their lead?

To simply follow the tech bro blueprint would be reckless. Their vision privileges profit and efficiency over democratic accountability. The risks—eroded labor rights, weakened privacy, algorithmic injustice, and democratic backsliding—are too severe.

Fighting back means asserting democratic control of technology.

Regulators like the NPC must be empowered with stronger enforcement powers and resources. Antitrust actions, similar to those now happening in the United States and European Union, should be explored to curb monopolistic platforms locally.

Workers in the tech industry—whether coders in BGC, riders in Cebu, or call center agents in Davao—must organize and demand ethical standards and labor protections. The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines has begun conversations on digital labor rights, but more is needed.

Public awareness is key. Digital literacy programs, such as those piloted in barangays by local NGOs, must be scaled up to help users understand how data is collected and used.

Alternatives matter, too. Cooperative platforms, open-source projects, and publicly owned networks could give citizens more control. Some LGUs are already experimenting with community Wi-Fi and municipal digital services—small steps toward de-privatizing the digital commons.

Finally, cultural work is essential. As Jacobin magazine noted, Silicon Valley sells us the myth of heroic disruption while masking its dependence on neoliberal policies. Filipinos must resist the glorification of profit-driven disruption and insist on narratives of solidarity, accountability, and care.

The tech bro phenomenon is not just about overhyped gadgets or brash personalities online. It is a political economy project: less oversight, more concentration of power, and a society redesigned around data extraction. If unchecked, it will deepen inequality and weaken democracy.

For Filipinos, this is not abstract. It is about how our data is used, how our workers are treated, how our elections are shaped, and how our daily lives are mediated by algorithms. The fight for rights—online and offline—means refusing to be passive consumers. We must act as citizens, demanding accountability and imagining alternatives.

If we surrender to the tech bro agenda, we will inherit a future built for their profit, not our freedom.

———-

WATCH TECHSABADO ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

WATCH OUR OTHER YOUTUBE CHANNELS:

PLEASE LIKE our FACEBOOK PAGE and SUBSCRIBE to OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

PLEASE LIKE our FACEBOOK PAGE and SUBSCRIBE to OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

BURNING CHROME by Jing Garcia -- because the mind is a terrible thing to taste.