> And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents.

That part is a relatively compelling argument and one that I am partial to. I think that politics is an overloaded term nowadays and many, quite reasonably, consider the personal to be political and power to always be political. In these cases, I again have the same worry about making everything equivalent linguistically - I fear we lose the usefulness of the word 'politics'.

But acceding to your definition of politics, I would change my original comment to be: I do not like the direction in which tech is being politicized. I think there are larger-scale power arrangements that do not get nearly enough attention and I worry that the current discussion is more around 'how can tear down those who are succeeding' and less of 'how can we better share in the bounty that is being created'.