Accelerationism advocates a surrender to the forces of acceleration instead, jumping into the river even as we can hear the roar of the waterfall.

But you get the sense that the film doesn’t direct its anger toward the big, bad corporation behind it all—instead, it spends most of its time lampooning the consumers who allowed themselves to be brainwashed by it. The cultural critic and blogger Mark Fisher has called this the film’s “gestural anti-capitalism,” and it is characteristic of Silicon

This is what historians of ideas call a “genius aesthetic”: it describes our tendency to think that the meaning of a work of art comes out of the specific mind of its creator, not out of the preexisting rules that creator worked within nor the broader spirit of the society and time.

Just as kvetching over political correctness often requires the invention of the restrictions and pieties which it sees itself as engaged in a titanic struggle against, so the disrupter portrays even the most staid cottage industry as a Death Star against which its plucky rebels have to do battle.

There is a tendency in Silicon Valley to want to be revolutionary without, you know, revolutionizing anything.

The problem isn’t that the act of providing content is ignored or uncompensated but rather that it isn’t recognized as labor.

Rand presents a world in which self-reliance is easy and pure. And her work depends on an understanding of self-reliance that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny once you’ve had to, you know, actually self-rely.

Disruption looks for the foreshocks within stability. At the same time, we probably shouldn’t discount that sense of stability altogether.

Disruption plays to our impatience with structures and situations that seem to coast on habit and inertia, and it plays to the press’s excitement about underdogs, rebels, outsiders.