Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline  Full Document Contents/Articles/Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline.md, Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline, Cory Doctorow. > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: > - #TechCulture > - #BDFL > - #SiliconValley > - #Autocracy > - #OpenSource > - #Leadership > Author: Cory Doctorow > Source: Pluralistic.net > Reference: [Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply) > date created: {{date:2024-12-10}} {{time:14:00}} > > # Title: Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#📝-Summary) - [📖 Main Content](#📖-Main-Content) - [🗒️ Notes](#🗒️-Notes) - [📖 References](#📖-References) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#🗣️-Paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#📰-Newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#✅-Action-Items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#🧪-Hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#📊-Methodology) - [❓ Questions](#❓-Questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#🔮-Future-Research) - [💡 Implications](#💡-Implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#🧠-Learning-Styles-Assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#📊-Accessibility-Assessment) - [🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment](#🌍-DEIB-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-and-Belonging-Assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#✅-Logical-Validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#🔍-DARVO-Analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#🔍-SEO-Evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#🎯-Conclusion) ### References: - Doctorow, Cory. *Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline*. Pluralistic.net. 2024. Retrieved from [here](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply). ## 📝 Summary: Cory Doctorow’s article explores the transformation of tech founders, particularly those in Silicon Valley, from well-meaning leaders of small projects into authoritarian figures. He links this shift to the larger trend of tech leaders sympathizing with autocratic figures and governance styles. The article highlights how the "benevolent dictator for life" (BDFL) model can evolve into a harmful concentration of power when leaders are unchecked, leading to authoritarian mindsets. ## 📖 Main Content: The main discussion revolves around the rise of tech CEOs and founders who once prided themselves on being progressive but now find themselves aligning with authoritarian ideals. Doctorow explores the "Benevolent Dictator for Life" (BDFL) model, noting how these leaders start out with good intentions but face pressures as their projects grow, leading them to authoritarian decisions. The article also discusses the importance of checks and balances in tech leadership and uses the example of Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales, who transitioned from BDFL to shared leadership to avoid autocracy. ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL) Model**: - **Definition**: The BDFL model refers to a leadership structure where the founder or leader of a project holds absolute control over its direction, often without formal checks or accountability. Initially, this model is seen as necessary because the leader has the most comprehensive understanding of the project and its goals. - **Origins**: The model originates in smaller tech startups or open-source projects where the founder is directly involved with the development and direction of the project. The founders have a personal stake in the success of the project, which makes their role central and often uncontested. - **Initial Justification**: The justification for this system is based on the leader's initial involvement, their ability to manage the project with deep knowledge, and the lack of external stakeholders who might interfere. In many cases, a BDFL’s decisions are also shaped by a personal passion for the project and its ideals. - **Evolving Dangers**: As projects grow, the BDFL model can become problematic. The leader’s control over all major decisions, without feedback or countervailing power, can result in poor decision-making, authoritarian tendencies, and a lack of accountability. When the project scales significantly—often involving millions of users and employees—the implications of unchecked power can be vast and damaging. - **Tech Founders’ Shift to Autocracy**: - **Tech Leaders Embrace Autocratic Ideals**: A key point in the article is the increasing trend of tech leaders who once identified with progressive or liberal ideals, now finding themselves sympathetic to authoritarian figures such as Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, or Jair Bolsonaro. This shift is often explained as a response to the pressures of managing large, complex organizations and the growing demands placed on tech CEOs. - **Reactionary Justifications**: Doctorow examines the common excuse used by tech founders transitioning to more conservative or autocratic views: "I didn’t leave the progressive movement, it left me." This justification relies on the notion that the tech industry has changed, with employees and the broader community increasingly demanding more from these leaders, particularly around issues like privilege, labor rights, and corporate accountability. - **A Conflict of Interest**: The article discusses how these leaders were initially more open to progressive social ideals because their projects were small, and they could afford to be idealistic. However, as they built large, powerful companies, these ideals conflicted with the reality of corporate governance, profit maximization, and shareholder expectations. - **Growing Disconnect**: The disconnect between the founders’ progressive roots and their current positions is amplified by the dramatic increase in their wealth and power, which isolates them from the concerns of regular employees or activists. This growing wealth often coincides with a greater sense of vulnerability and a resulting shift toward more authoritarian leadership styles. - **Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia’s Leadership Evolution**: - **Case Study**: The article uses Jimmy Wales’ decision to relinquish his BDFL status with Wikipedia as an example of a successful transition from autocratic leadership to shared, democratic governance. Wales, who initially oversaw Wikipedia as a benevolent dictator, recognized that the scale and importance of the project required more than one individual’s control. - **Leadership Handover**: Wales transferred control to the Wikimedia Foundation, ensuring that decisions would be made by a board of trustees and community members rather than by a single individual. This move was essential to maintaining Wikipedia’s independence and ensuring that it remained a platform for open collaboration and community-driven content. - **Contrast with Other BDFLs**: The article contrasts Wales’ decision with other tech leaders who, despite their initial progressive ideals, resisted or avoided similar changes to their leadership structures. Doctorow argues that Wales’ decision was not just a personal triumph, but a model for other tech leaders to follow as their projects grow and gain prominence. - **Autocrat vs. Benevolent Dictator**: - **The Dangers of Autocracy in Tech**: The article highlights how the transition from a benevolent dictator to an authoritarian leader is often exacerbated by a lack of external checks and balances. When founders lose sight of the community and the broader social implications of their projects, they become more susceptible to authoritarian thinking. The rise of autocratic tendencies can be seen in Silicon Valley’s increasing alignment with right-wing ideologies and the authoritarian policies of global leaders. - **The Benevolent Dictator’s Responsibility**: Doctorow argues that being a BDFL comes with immense responsibility, and that the temptation to wield unchecked power is a significant moral and ethical risk. Without the checks of community feedback, corporate governance, or social responsibility, even the most well-intentioned leaders can veer into dangerous territory, prioritizing their vision and control over the needs of the community. - **The Role of Tech Communities in Mitigating Authoritarianism**: - **Community and Collective Power**: Doctorow suggests that the key to avoiding authoritarian leadership is building systems of governance that include checks and balances from the broader community. These systems allow for a more equitable distribution of power and ensure that decisions are made collaboratively, rather than unilaterally. - **Lessons for the Future**: The article calls for future tech leaders to take note of the lessons from BDFLs like Jimmy Wales, who transitioned to a more sustainable and community-driven leadership model. Doctorow emphasizes the importance of transparency, accountability, and shared governance in avoiding the authoritarian pitfalls that many tech companies face today. ## 📖 References: - Doctorow, Cory. *Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline*. Pluralistic.net. Retrieved from [here](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply). ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. "Tech founders who once lived in a world where their workers were also their friends may find themselves now at odds with those workers as they grow into large corporations, where labor relations become more complex." - **Paraphrase**: As tech companies grow, the friendly atmosphere of a small startup transforms into a more structured and hierarchical system, which can lead to friction between founders and their employees. 2. "The key to resolving the BDFL dilemma is not for tech leaders to hold onto their power but to share it with others, ensuring a system of checks and balances that benefits the community." - **Paraphrase**: The solution for BDFLs is not to cling to their authority, but to empower others through shared leadership, ensuring a more sustainable and equitable project. ## 📰 Newsletter: This week’s newsletter dives into the authoritarian shift within Silicon Valley’s tech elite. Once viewed as progressive and collaborative, many founders now embrace autocratic governance, mirroring figures like Trump and Bolsonaro. Cory Doctorow’s latest piece, *Tech's Benevolent-Dictator-for-Life to Authoritarian Pipeline*, dissects how the BDFL model can lead to power abuse, especially when leaders, distanced from accountability, struggle with complex, large-scale decisions. On a brighter note, Doctorow highlights Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, who transitioned to a more collaborative leadership model, ensuring Wikipedia’s longevity. A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of tech, power, and community-building. ## ✅ Action Items: 1. **Explore the BDFL Model**: Investigate the BDFL model’s advantages and risks in your own open-source projects. How can checks and balances be incorporated? 2. **Advocacy for Shared Leadership**: Advocate for more collaborative leadership models within large tech companies, drawing from successful examples like Wikipedia. 3. **Teach Accountability in Tech**: As a Developer Advocate, continue educating the community on the importance of responsible leadership and fostering inclusive, transparent environments. ## 🧪 Hypotheses: 1. The growth of tech companies leads to a significant shift in the leadership style from collaborative to autocratic, driven by a need for more control. 2. The BDFL model, when unchecked, exacerbates issues of inequality and power abuse within tech companies. ### 📊 Methodology: - **Research Design**: Comparative analysis of tech companies that use the BDFL model versus those with more collaborative leadership structures. - **Data Sources**: Interviews with founders, employees, and users of companies with different leadership models. ### ❓ Questions: 1. How can tech companies implement effective checks and balances without stifling innovation? 2. What are the long-term impacts of authoritarian leadership on tech industry culture and innovation? ### 🔮 Future Research: 1. Explore how the transition from BDFL to more decentralized leadership affects employee satisfaction, innovation, and company longevity. 2. Examine the psychological effects on founders who transition from progressive ideals to authoritarian governance. ### 💡 Implications: This shift in leadership styles can impact the broader tech ecosystem, potentially reducing diversity of thought and slowing innovation in the long term. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing sustainable leadership practices that maintain ethical standards and social responsibility. ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: 1. **Visual Learners**: The article would benefit from more visual elements like diagrams illustrating the BDFL model and its evolution. 2. **Aural Learners**: Including a podcast or interview with a BDFL leader could provide auditory learners with engaging content. 3. **Verbal Learners**: The language is rich in examples and analogies, which caters well to verbal learners. 4. **Physical Learners**: Suggest incorporating a hands-on exercise to engage physical learners in exploring alternative leadership models. 5. **Logical Learners**: The argument is structured logically, but more data-driven insights and case studies could further appeal to logical learners. 6. **Social Learners**: The article invites discussion on leadership models, which can foster group conversations. 7. **Solitary Learners**: Reflective questions at the end of each section could support solitary learners. 8. **Naturalistic Learners**: More examples of tech projects connected to real-world challenges could enhance the article’s appeal to naturalistic learners. ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: The article is well-structured for screen readers. - **Keyboard Navigation**: The content is navigable by keyboard. - **Contrast and Readability**: Ensure high contrast between text and background for better readability. - **Text Resizing**: The layout accommodates text resizing. ### 🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: The article could incorporate more diverse cultural perspectives on leadership and power dynamics. - **Inclusive Language**: The language is gender-neutral and inclusive. - **Neurodiversity Support**: Clear, concise language aids readability for neurodiverse individuals. - **Representation**: The article focuses on tech, but more representation from diverse groups within tech could be added. ### ✅ Logical Validity: - **Strong Inductive Reasoning**: The article’s arguments are well-supported by historical examples and personal insights. - **Appeal to Facts/Evidence**: Cites real-world examples of tech leaders to support the thesis. **Fallacies Identified**: No clear fallacies identified, but the argument could benefit from a deeper exploration of counterarguments. ## 🔍 DARVO Analysis: - **Deny**: No overt denial of responsibility, but a shift from progressive ideals to authoritarianism is explained as a natural evolution of leadership. - **Attack**: There's little direct attack on critics, but a critique of the pressures faced by tech leaders is evident. - **Reverse Victim and Offender**: The narrative doesn't reverse the roles of the tech leaders and their critics but frames the leaders as being overwhelmed by their responsibilities. ### 🔍 SEO Evaluation: - **Keywords**: Effective use of keywords like "BDFL," "tech leaders," and "autocracy." - **Meta Description**: Missing a meta description for improved SEO. - **Content Length**: The content is detailed enough to be considered comprehensive for SEO. ## 🎯 Conclusion: Cory Doctorow’s article provides an insightful analysis of the tech industry’s shift from progressive leadership to authoritarianism. It raises important questions about power, accountability, and leadership structures within Silicon Valley, offering both critiques and examples of leaders who have navigated these challenges effectively. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - Pluralistic: Tech's benevolent-dictator-for-life to authoritarian pipeline (10 Dec 2024) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jeryefz49bkr0fn3mcvyfmd1)) - [](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/) Today's links • [Tech's benevolent-dictator-for-life to authoritarian pipeline](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply): It's damned hard to be an anti-authoritarian in a C-suite. • [Hey look at this](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#linkdump): Delights to delectate. • [This day in history](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#retro): 2014, 2019 • [Upcoming appearances](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#upcoming): Where to find me. • [Recent appearances](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#recent): Where I've been. • [Latest books](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#latest): You keep readin' em, I'll keep writin' 'em. • [Upcoming books](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#upcoming-books): Like I said, I'll keep writin' 'em. • [Colophon](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#bragsheet): All the rest. * * *  Tech's benevolent-dictator-for-life to authoritarian pipeline ([permalink](https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply)) Silicon Valley's "authoritarian turn" is hard to miss: tech bosses have come out for autocrats like Trump, Orban, Milei, Bolsonaro, et al, and want to turn San Francisco into a militia-patrolled apartheid state operated for the benefit of tech bros: [https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-network-state-plutocrat](https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-network-state-plutocrat) Smart people have written well about what this means, and have gotten me thinking, too: [https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/why-did-silicon-valley-turn-right](https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/why-did-silicon-valley-turn-right) Regular readers will know that I make a kind of hobby of collecting definitions of right-wing thought: [https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/29/jubilance/#tolerable-racism](https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/29/jubilance/#tolerable-racism) One of these – a hoary old cliche – is that "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." I don't give this one much credence, but it takes on an interesting sheen when combined with this anonymous gem: "Conservatives say they long for the simpler times of their childhood, but what they miss is that the reason they lived simpler lives back then wasn't that the *times* were simpler; rather, it's because they were *children*." If you're a tech founder who once lived in a world where your workers were also your pals and didn't shout at you about labor relations, perhaps that's not because workers got "woke," but rather, because when you were all scrapping at a startup, you were all on an equal footing and there weren't any labor relations to speak of. And if you're a once-right-on tech founder who used to abstractly favor "social justice" but now find yourself beset by people demanding that you confront your privilege, perhaps what's changed isn't those people, but rather the amount of privilege you have. In other words, "a reactionary tech boss is a liberal tech boss who hired a bunch of pals only to have them turn around and start a union." And also: "Tech founders say things were simpler when they were running startups, but what they miss is that the reason no one asked their startup to seriously engage with the social harms it caused is the because the startup was largely irrelevant to society, while the large company it turned into is destroying millions of peoples' lives today." The oft-repeated reactionary excuse that "I didn't leave the progressive movement, they left me," can be both technically true and also profoundly wrong: if progressives in your circle never bothered you about your commercial affairs, perhaps that's because those affairs didn't matter when you were grinding out code in your hacker house, but they matter a *lot* now that you have millions of users and thousands of employees. I've been in tech circles since before the dawn of the dotcoms; I was part of a movement of people who would come over to your house with a stack of floppies and install TCP/IP and PPP networking software on your computer and show you how to connect to a BBS or ISP, because we wanted *everyone* to have as much fun as we were having. Some of us channeled that excitement into starting companies that let people get online, create digital presences of their own, and connect with other people. Some of us were more .ORG than .COM and gave our lives over to activism and nonprofits, missing out on the stock options and big paydays. But even though we ended up in different places, we mostly started in the same place, as spittle-flecked, excited kids talking a mile a minute about how cool this internet thing would be and helping you, a normie, jump into it. Many of my peers from the .ORG and .COM worlds went on to set up institutions – both companies and nonprofits – that have since grown to be critical pieces of internet infrastructure: classified ad platforms, online encyclopedias, CMSes and personal publishing services, critical free/open source projects, standards bodies, server-to-server utilities, and more. These all started out as benevolent autocracies: personal projects started by people who pitched in to help their virtual neighbors with the new, digital problems we were all facing. These good people, with good impulses, did good: their projects filled an important need, and grew, and grew, and became structurally important to the digital world. What started off as "Our pal's project that we all pitch in on," became, "Our pal's important mission that we help with, but that also has paid staff and important stakeholders, which they oversee as 'benevolent dictator for life.'" Which was fine. The people who kicked off these projects had nurtured them all the way from a napkin doodle to infrastructure. They understood them better than anyone else, had sacrificed much for them, and it made sense for them to be installed as stewards. But what they did *next*, how they used their powers as "BFDLs," made a huge difference. Because we are all imperfect, we are all capable of rationalizing our way into bad choices, we are all riven with insecurities that can push us to do things we later regret. When our actions are checked – by our peers' social approval or approbation; by the need to keep our volunteers happy; by the possibility of a mass exodus of our users or a fork of our code – these imperfections are balanced by consequences. Dictators aren't necessarily any more prone to these lapses in judgment than anyone else. Benevolent dictators actually exist, people who only retain power because they *genuinely* want to use that power for good. Those people aren't more likely to fly off the handle or talk themselves into bad places than you or me – but to be a dictator (benevolent or otherwise) is to exist without the *consequences* that prevent you from giving in to those impulses. Worse: if you are the dictator – again, benevolent or otherwise – of a big, structurally important company or nonprofit that millions of people rely on, the *consequences* of these lapses are extremely consequential. This is how BDFL arrangements turn sour: by removing themselves from formal constraint, the people whose screwups matter the most end up with the fewest guardrails to prevent themselves from screwing up. No wonder people who set out to do good, to help others find safe and satisfying digital homes online, find themselves feeling furious and beset. Given those feelings, can we really be surprised when "benevolent" dictators discover that they have sympathy for real-world autocrats whose core ethos is, "I know what needs to be done and I could *do* it, if only the rest of you would stop nagging me about petty bullshit that you just made up 10 minutes ago but now insist is the most import ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jervbhh5bp7ry7jgj29a80x8)) - Silicon Valley's "authoritarian turn" is hard to miss: tech bosses have come out for autocrats like Trump, Orban, Milei, Bolsonaro, et al, and want to turn San Francisco into a militia-patrolled apartheid state operated for the benefit of tech bros: [https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-network-state-plutocrat](https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-network-state-plutocrat) Smart people have written well about what this means, and have gotten me thinking, too: [https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/why-did-silicon-valley-turn-right](https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/why-did-silicon-valley-turn-right) Regular readers will know that I make a kind of hobby of collecting definitions of right-wing thought: [https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/29/jubilance/#tolerable-racism](https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/29/jubilance/#tolerable-racism) One of these – a hoary old cliche – is that "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." I don't give this one much credence, but it takes on an interesting sheen when combined with this anonymous gem: "Conservatives say they long for the simpler times of their childhood, but what they miss is that the reason they lived simpler lives back then wasn't that the *times* were simpler; rather, it's because they were *children*." If you're a tech founder who once lived in a world where your workers were also your pals and didn't shout at you about labor relations, perhaps that's not because workers got "woke," but rather, because when you were all scrapping at a startup, you were all on an equal footing and there weren't any labor relations to speak of. And if you're a once-right-on tech founder who used to abstractly favor "social justice" but now find yourself beset by people demanding that you confront your privilege, perhaps what's changed isn't those people, but rather the amount of privilege you have. In other words, "a reactionary tech boss is a liberal tech boss who hired a bunch of pals only to have them turn around and start a union." And also: "Tech founders say things were simpler when they were running startups, but what they miss is that the reason no one asked their startup to seriously engage with the social harms it caused is the because the startup was largely irrelevant to society, while the large company it turned into is destroying millions of peoples' lives today." The oft-repeated reactionary excuse that "I didn't leave the progressive movement, they left me," can be both technically true and also profoundly wrong: if progressives in your circle never bothered you about your commercial affairs, perhaps that's because those affairs didn't matter when you were grinding out code in your hacker house, but they matter a *lot* now that you have millions of users and thousands of employees. I've been in tech circles since before the dawn of the dotcoms; I was part of a movement of people who would come over to your house with a stack of floppies and install TCP/IP and PPP networking software on your computer and show you how to connect to a BBS or ISP, because we wanted *everyone* to have as much fun as we were having. Some of us channeled that excitement into starting companies that let people get online, create digital presences of their own, and connect with other people. Some of us were more .ORG than .COM and gave our lives over to activism and nonprofits, missing out on the stock options and big paydays. But even though we ended up in different places, we mostly started in the same place, as spittle-flecked, excited kids talking a mile a minute about how cool this internet thing would be and helping you, a normie, jump into it. Many of my peers from the .ORG and .COM worlds went on to set up institutions – both companies and nonprofits – that have since grown to be critical pieces of internet infrastructure: classified ad platforms, online encyclopedias, CMSes and personal publishing services, critical free/open source projects, standards bodies, server-to-server utilities, and more. These all started out as benevolent autocracies: personal projects started by people who pitched in to help their virtual neighbors with the new, digital problems we were all facing. These good people, with good impulses, did good: their projects filled an important need, and grew, and grew, and became structurally important to the digital world. What started off as "Our pal's project that we all pitch in on," became, "Our pal's important mission that we help with, but that also has paid staff and important stakeholders, which they oversee as 'benevolent dictator for life.'" Which was fine. The people who kicked off these projects had nurtured them all the way from a napkin doodle to infrastructure. They understood them better than anyone else, had sacrificed much for them, and it made sense for them to be installed as stewards. But what they did *next*, how they used their powers as "BFDLs," made a huge difference. Because we are all imperfect, we are all capable of rationalizing our way into bad choices, we are all riven with insecurities that can push us to do things we later regret. When our actions are checked – by our peers' social approval or approbation; by the need to keep our volunteers happy; by the possibility of a mass exodus of our users or a fork of our code – these imperfections are balanced by consequences. Dictators aren't necessarily any more prone to these lapses in judgment than anyone else. Benevolent dictators actually exist, people who only retain power because they *genuinely* want to use that power for good. Those people aren't more likely to fly off the handle or talk themselves into bad places than you or me – but to be a dictator (benevolent or otherwise) is to exist without the *consequences* that prevent you from giving in to those impulses. Worse: if you are the dictator – again, benevolent or otherwise – of a big, structurally important company or nonprofit that millions of people rely on, the *consequences* of these lapses are extremely consequential. This is how BDFL arrangements turn sour: by removing themselves from formal constraint, the people whose screwups matter the most end up with the fewest guardrails to prevent themselves from screwing up. No wonder people who set out to do good, to help others find safe and satisfying digital homes online, find themselves feeling furious and beset. Given those feelings, can we really be surprised when "benevolent" dictators discover that they have sympathy for real-world autocrats whose core ethos is, "I know what needs to be done and I could *do* it, if only the rest of you would stop nagging me about petty bullshit that you just made up 10 minutes ago but now insist is the most important thing in the world?" That all said, it's interesting to look at the process by which *some* BDFLs transitioned to community-run projects with checks and balances. I often think about how Wikipedia's BDFL, the self-avowed libertarian Jimmy Wales, decided (correctly, and to his everlasting credit), that the project he raised from a weird idea into a world-historic phenomenon should *not* be ruled over by one guy, not even him. (Jimmy is one of those libertarians who believes that we don't need governments to make us be kind and take care of one another because he *is* kind and takes care of other people – see also John Gilmore and Penn Jillette:) [https://www.cracked.com/article_40871_penn-jillette-wants-to-talk-it-all-out.html](https://www.cracked.com/article_40871_penn-jillette-wants-to-talk-it-all-out.html) Jimmy's handover to the Wikimedia Foundation gives me hope for our other BDFLs. He's proof that you can find yourself in the hotseat *without* being so overwhelmed with personal grievance that you find yourself in sympathy with actual fascists, but rather, have the maturity and self-awareness to know that the reason people are demanding so much of you is that you have – deliberately and with great effort – created a situation in which you owe the world a superhuman degree of care and attention, and the only way to resolve that situation equitably and secure your own posterity is to s ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jery3m8vys42krvwm6xwyy5h))