I don't think there's a dichotomy anymore, every car manufacturer is a tech company now. Tesla is a car company run like a tech company and I'll take Honda or Toyota over them every time. And it's not like the tech chops are lacking among traditional automakers, Mercedes launched (albeit limited) actually full self driving where you're not expected to take over and they take liability.

"Tech" isn't that generic. There's no reason to believe that a company that makes a search engine will do any better at self driving. I mean they bought Waymo after they were already promising.

So many “tech” companies aren’t really tech, they just apply fairly standard software principals to new industries.

Companies like salesforce, Uber, Airbnb are more marketing or market making apps. Eventually they do apply some more sophisticated software to scale their products, but their core business is not technical in nature. Even Facebook started out as an electronic blend of the school facebook (paperback) and hotornot.

I’m not in SV tech so perhaps my perception is wrong? But googles core competency was search algorithms, though their business is ads of course. So more of a tech company.

He said he objected to having it from a company with a surveillance business model. Are you assuming that all tech companies have a surveillance business model?

It’s ok for people in tech to not like or trust companies with a surveillance business model. Especially when Google has recently shown a renewed willingness to put profits far above what is best for their customers. I’m in tech and have recently been disgusted by googles abuses of what they used to believe.

Why are you fine giving away control to more surveillance? I don't see what is laughable or reductive about the argument.

Yes, I work in tech, but I generally prefer tech that gives people power, not take it away.

What part of self-driving car do you find to be objectionable?

The part where a corporation does the driving for you.