zlacker

Difference is that tech poses itself as "new" (i.e. different from old, traditional things/companies) and its leaders (actual business magnates or your average CEO) either indirectly or directly talk about making the world/people better. Therefore, when they do stuff any other company does (because they're just like any other company, surprise), it feels or sounds a lot worse.

Also, stories on tech (maybe because of the above?) are trendier. No one cares if a factory or finance firm have toxic cultures (because we all expect them to?).

>>sotoju+(OP)
> Difference is that tech poses itself as "new" (i.e. different from old, traditional things/companies) and its leaders (actual business magnates or your average CEO) either indirectly or directly talk about making the world/people better.

No, a very few Silicon Valley businesses pose themselves as new and its leaders talk about "making the world/people better". These aren't representative of the whole worldwide IT sector, which is no more "feminist" than the coal industry.

> Also, stories on tech (maybe because of the above?) are trendier. No one cares if a factory or finance firm have toxic cultures (because we all expect them to?).

Many of the people here are too young to remember how Wall street used to be seen as a "left wing" sector in the 90's the same way "big tech" is now. Ironically shun by leftist activists today as the "personification of the devil".

Wall St finance used to be called the "new money" sector as opposition to the "old money" which was the core of the republican elite. And the same way, some financial companies and CEO claimed to be something new and make the world better. So the irony of your statement...