Andreessen's manifesto is like a boxer who's forgotten to guard his chin, leaving himself wide open for a knockout punch. By failing to acknowledge the potential downsides and trade-offs of technological progress, he's practically gift-wrapped a target for critics.
Just as a poorly argued legal case can set a damaging precedent, Andreessen's manifesto risks becoming a reference point for critics who wish to dismiss the pro-progress position as naive or out of touch with reality.
So, Andreessen, if you're listening, it's time to step up to the plate. It's time to add some nuance to your argument, and to stop making it so easy for critics to knock down your position. Because right now, your manifesto is doing more harm than good to the pro-progress movement.
Great Post, Matt's response was really weird, like surely he knows his caricature of Andreessen is actually false. Best guess is that like usual he's trying to make his own views be more appealing to his Liberal audience, and by pushing back against Andreessen, he's making himself appear less "dogmatically" pro market and pro tech.
Andreessen's manifesto is like a boxer who's forgotten to guard his chin, leaving himself wide open for a knockout punch. By failing to acknowledge the potential downsides and trade-offs of technological progress, he's practically gift-wrapped a target for critics.
Just as a poorly argued legal case can set a damaging precedent, Andreessen's manifesto risks becoming a reference point for critics who wish to dismiss the pro-progress position as naive or out of touch with reality.
So, Andreessen, if you're listening, it's time to step up to the plate. It's time to add some nuance to your argument, and to stop making it so easy for critics to knock down your position. Because right now, your manifesto is doing more harm than good to the pro-progress movement.
Andreessen's piece reads a bit like Galt's speech.
Great Post, Matt's response was really weird, like surely he knows his caricature of Andreessen is actually false. Best guess is that like usual he's trying to make his own views be more appealing to his Liberal audience, and by pushing back against Andreessen, he's making himself appear less "dogmatically" pro market and pro tech.
Thanks for bringing Noah and Matt's essays to light. I thought they were both great.