Perhaps my perspective is tainted by living in the bay area through two (three?) tech bubbles, however I still don't see it. I agree that HN-type hackers and anarchists both use aesthetically similar language, like "changing the world," but I think that means something substantially different in each context.
My sense is that when tech people talk about changing the world, they generally mean keeping the form of the world basically the same, but making it more efficient.
Here's an example from HN and YC, 42floors:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500176
They use the language you're talking about -- they want to "change the world" ...with a commercial real-estate search engine! I'm sure that these folks are doing fine work, but really, the world is going to be fundamentally the same, it just might be a little easier to find commercial real-estate in it.
On the other hand, the anarchist basis is that fundamental aspects of society (police, prisons, judges, rulers, laws, taxes) were all the inventions of kings, which were later appropriated rather than destroyed. That it was a mistake to think it was possible to "change the world" simply by putting these same structures in the hands of different people, and that what's actually required is to eliminate them completely.
These, I think, are pretty different ways of conceptualizing that phrase.
I will agree that there are sometimes unusual intersections (the history of twitter, for instance).
My sense is that when tech people talk about changing the world, they generally mean keeping the form of the world basically the same, but making it more efficient.
Here's an example from HN and YC, 42floors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500176
They use the language you're talking about -- they want to "change the world" ...with a commercial real-estate search engine! I'm sure that these folks are doing fine work, but really, the world is going to be fundamentally the same, it just might be a little easier to find commercial real-estate in it.
On the other hand, the anarchist basis is that fundamental aspects of society (police, prisons, judges, rulers, laws, taxes) were all the inventions of kings, which were later appropriated rather than destroyed. That it was a mistake to think it was possible to "change the world" simply by putting these same structures in the hands of different people, and that what's actually required is to eliminate them completely.
These, I think, are pretty different ways of conceptualizing that phrase.
I will agree that there are sometimes unusual intersections (the history of twitter, for instance).