Effective Accelerationism (e/acc) is a term borrowed from the broader accelerationist philosophy, which suggests that technological and societal progress should not be resisted but rather sped up to its logical conclusion. Originally rooted in the work of British philosopher Nick Land, accelerationism has long had a cybernetic, almost apocalyptic quality—embracing capitalism’s exponential expansion as an unavoidable (and possibly transformative) force.
But e/acc, as it exists today, is a bastardized version of this philosophy. Rather than a radical critique of power, it has been co-opted by Silicon Valley elites, particularly venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen, who frame unregulated technological advancement as an unquestionable good.
Andreessen’s 2023 “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” became the defining cultural moment that brought e/acc into the mainstream, repackaging it into a digestible Silicon Valley ideology. His core argument? Technology is inherently good, and anyone who tries to slow it down is an enemy of progress.
The flaw in this argument is its oversimplification: it assumes that capital is the primary driver of innovation, ignoring that some of the most pivotal technological advancements—like the internet itself—emerged from academic and government-funded research rather than venture capital-backed startups. The early internet was built on principles of open access and decentralization, not on the hyper-financialized, walled-garden ecosystems Silicon Valley now champions.
Silicon Valley’s leaders love to frame AI acceleration as a matter of existential survival, moralizing over the dangers of overregulation. But when it comes to actual life-and-death stakes, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, their moral clarity evaporates. The same VCs who advocate for decentralized and open AI systems have no problem funding surveillance tech, predictive policing, and military applications that entrench real-world violence… (*coughs* BOMB BABIES).
The All In Podcast, a favored platform for Silicon Valley elites, hosted Jared Kushner sometime ago (WHAT A CRINGE EPISODE!), allowing him to peddle pro-Israel propaganda unchallenged. The lack of pushback from the show’s hosts—who usually revel in playing devil’s advocate—was revealing. They claim to champion “first principles thinking,” yet when it comes to Israel, they parrot mainstream narratives with a blind eye to historical context.
Let’s shift the focus to THE APARTHEID APOLOGIST TECH BRO! THE CRINGELY WORSHIPPED! THE DUMBO THAT WILL CRUMBLE! Hehe, Lol I’m Just Playing..I’m talking about none other than ELON though. The American that boldly claims he’s not South African, but grew up in South Africa as an English South African, not Afrkaans (I wonder why that even matters), and seems to have a clear understanding of what Mandela stood for; outlining how Mandela never intended for what’s happening in South Africa to happen at all. These are his own words not mine…The jokes really do write themselves!
Elon Musk loves to position himself as the ultimate anti-establishment figure, railing against the “woke mind virus” and government overreach. Quite laughable…
Yet under Trump’s second administration, he has seamlessly embedded himself into the very deep state he once decried. His close ties to the government have culminated in the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a shadowy bureaucratic entity that Musk runs with unchecked power.
Trump, who has spent years waging war on the so-called deep state, paradoxically built his own—installing Musk at the helm of DOGE, where he was never elected but rather hand-picked. Initially, Musk was meant to co-lead DOGE with Vivek Ramaswamy, but after a brief stint, Vivek was ousted (that’s how I see it!), leaving Musk in full control. In classic deep-state fashion, the Trump administration has worked to exempt DOGE from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), shielding it from transparency and accountability. Add to this how Elon’s PayPal mafia ally David Sacks was also bestowed the role of “Crypto Czar” in the new Trump administration.
For someone who claims to champion democracy and free speech, Musk’s rise to power within an unelected government structure is anything but democratic. The irony is striking: he has become the very kind of bureaucratic overlord he once railed against.
Musk’s belief in technocratic rule isn’t just a personal quirk—it’s deeply ingrained in his lineage. His grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was a prominent leader in the Technocracy Movement in Canada, which advocated for governance by engineers and scientists rather than elected officials. After fleeing to apartheid South Africa, Haldeman continued to push for a system in which a select few “superior” minds dictated societal progress. Musk has inherited this ideological framework, disguising it under the veneer of innovation and humanitarianism.
In reality, his actions reveal a clear superiority complex—whether in his disdain for regulators, his unilateral control over critical infrastructure like Starlink, or his belief that he alone should steer humanity’s future. His tenure at DOGE is just another step in his consolidation of power, masquerading as efficiency while functioning as an unchecked, undemocratic force.
To put it plainly and simply, Elon is a loser with a lot of money, and unfortunately, ‘Bhari ke Bhari’, you can’t buy your way out of being a loser!
Also, Elon’s Silicon Valley bro’s there by Y Combinator, the world’s most influential startup accelerator, is a prime example of how Silicon Valley’s “tech bros” reinforce a profit-driven ideology under the guise of innovation. This is the same organization that has funded really dope startups like Airbnb, DoorDash, Reddit, Stripe, and Coinbase—companies that have reshaped the economy but ultimately prioritize shareholder value over social good. If Musk represents the face of technocratic hypocrisy, Y Combinator embodies its soul.
Y Combinator’s culture grooms entrepreneurs to see regulation as the enemy, public institutions as obsolete, and venture capital as the ultimate gatekeeper of progress. It’s an incubator for the next generation of technocrats, ensuring that the ideology of unfettered capitalism persists.
A stark example of this mindset surfaced recently with Optifye.ai, a Y Combinator-backed startup that was effectively building dystopian sweatshop surveillance software.
In the now-deleted demo video, the founders showcased a system that allowed factory owners to monitor workers in real-time, reducing them to color-coded efficiency metrics. In the video, a worker causing a bottleneck was identified only as “No. 17” and berated through the platform for underperformance.
The founders, Kushal Mohta and Vivaan Baid, both came from wealthy industrialist backgrounds in India and openly described how their family-owned factories inspired their vision.
Baid wrote in his Y Combinator bio that he’s been “around assembly lines for as long as I can remember” and wanted to “solve a manufacturing company owner’s biggest problem: low labor productivity.” Mohta similarly boasted of having “unrestricted access to assembly lines” since he was 15. This is the kind of founder Y Combinator champions—people who see human labor as nothing more than an inefficiency to be optimized, rather than individuals deserving of dignity.
The fact that this startup even received funding speaks volumes about what Silicon Valley stands for. Y Combinator only removed the video after public outrage, but the fact remains: had there been no backlash, the program would have continued, reinforcing the tech world’s obsession with profits over people…
While the e/acc movement is dominated by Silicon Valley’s profit-driven elite, a few voices stand out for their thoughtfulness, self-awareness, and commitment to a more equitable technological future. Among them are Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and BLOCK, as well as Vitalik Buterin, the co-creator of Ethereum. Both offer sobering critiques of the status quo and propose alternatives that prioritize decentralization, user autonomy, and societal good over profit and control.
Jack Dorsey is a rare figure in the tech world: a billionaire founder who isn’t afraid to critique his own creations. Since stepping away from Twitter (now X), Dorsey has been vocal about the platform’s shortcomings under Elon Musk’s leadership. He’s also been a champion of decentralized social media, supporting projects like BlueSky and NOSTR (which we covered a bit on our Decentralised Social issue that we published last year) that aim to return control to users.
Dorsey has openly acknowledged that Twitter’s evolution under Musk has been far from ideal. The platform’s algorithmic changes, which force users to see content from people they’ve blocked is a clear example of this—a move many see as a reflection of Musk’s ego and desire for control. I find Dorsey’s candor to be refreshing in an industry where founders often defend their creations at all costs.
As outlined in the video above, Dorsey has attributed the growth of BlueSky, his Twitter competitor, to the “downfall of Twitter.” While this might seem like a win for decentralization, Dorsey is quick to point out the broader societal implications. He notes that BlueSky’s user base is increasingly polarized, with right-leaning individuals flocking to Twitter and left-leaning users migrating to BlueSky. This fragmentation, he argues, is a symptom of a deeper problem: the failure of social media to foster meaningful dialogue and connection.
Dorsey’s support for NOSTR, a decentralized social media protocol, reflects his belief in a more equitable digital future. Unlike traditional platforms, NOSTR allows users to control their algorithms and data, shifting power away from centralized entities like Twitter or Meta. Dorsey sees this as the ideal form of social media—one where users, not corporations, dictate the rules of engagement.
Dorsey’s self-critical approach and commitment to decentralization offer a stark contrast to the profit-driven motives of many technocrats. He represents a rare breed of insider who is willing to question the systems he helped create and advocate for alternatives that prioritize user autonomy and societal good…
Vitalik Buterin, the co-creator of Ethereum, is another voice of sobriety in the tech world. While many of his peers embrace e/acc’s blind optimism, Buterin has introduced a more nuanced framework: d/acc (defense, decentralization, democracy). This philosophy reflects his belief that technological progress must be guided by ethical considerations and a commitment to inclusivity.
Buterin has been critical of e/acc’s unbridled enthusiasm for technological growth. He argues that while innovation is essential, it must be tempered by a focus on defense (protecting against harm), decentralization (distributing power), and democracy (ensuring equitable access). Without these safeguards, Buterin warns, technological progress risks exacerbating inequality and centralizing power in the hands of a few.
Buterin’s d/acc framework is a direct response to the shortcomings of e/acc. It emphasizes the need for technologies that protect individuals and communities, rather than exploiting them. For example, decentralized systems like Ethereum aim to redistribute power from centralized entities (e.g., banks, governments) to individuals, fostering greater autonomy and resilience.
Buterin’s approach is rooted in a deep sense of responsibility. He has consistently advocated for ethical considerations in tech development, from addressing the environmental impact of blockchain to ensuring that AI systems are aligned with human values. His thoughtfulness stands in stark contrast to the reckless optimism of figures like Marc Andreessen, who view ethical concerns as obstacles to progress.
Buterin’s d/acc philosophy represents a more mature, inclusive vision for technological development—one that balances innovation with accountability and growth with equity.
Dorsey and Buterin’s critiques and alternatives highlight a fundamental truth: technology is not inherently good or bad—it’s a tool that reflects the values of its creators and users. The e/acc movement, for all its optimism, often ignores this reality, prioritizing growth and profit over ethical considerations and societal impact.
Dorsey and Buterin remind us that there is another way. By embracing decentralization, user autonomy, and ethical innovation, we can create technologies that serve humanity, rather than the other way around. Their voices are a call to action for the tech industry to move beyond the hype and grapple with the hard questions: Who benefits from technological progress? Who gets left behind? And what kind of future do we want to build?
Despite its branding as a futuristic, pro-technology movement, effective accelerationism is ultimately just a more sophisticated justification for the monopolization of power. It is not about pushing humanity forward—it is about ensuring that a small group of technocrats dictate what progress looks like.
e/acc isn’t about acceleration. It’s about control. And if we don’t start pushing back, we’ll wake up in a world where every aspect of our lives is dictated by unelected technocrats who answer to no one but their balance sheets and income statements. To truly harness the power of technology, we must embrace a techno-realist approach—one that balances optimism with accountability, growth with equity, and innovation with humanity.
This is not just a call to action; it’s a call to conscience. Technology should serve humanity, not the other way around. The BIG question that I’ll leave you with, that is worth deliberating on is: will we recognize this for what it is before it’s too late?