There is a mis-perception in your statement, in that :
1. "techies" are some uniform block of people.
2. "techies" as a whole were at any point an anti-mainstream counterculture.
Many/most techies throughout history have been employed by the rich and powerful - individuals, private corporations, government institutions, religious institutions (if we go back far enough). So, the extent to which they are part of a counter-culture is through a critical evaluation of their own roles. There are also "independent" techies, of course - but those too often from well-off social strata and do not have much of a mind to subvert dominant culture on the social level (as opposed to in their personal habits).
... and I personally can't read the article since the corporate firewall I'm behind is blocking it, so that's kind of ironic :-(
1. "techies" are some uniform block of people.
2. "techies" as a whole were at any point an anti-mainstream counterculture.
Many/most techies throughout history have been employed by the rich and powerful - individuals, private corporations, government institutions, religious institutions (if we go back far enough). So, the extent to which they are part of a counter-culture is through a critical evaluation of their own roles. There are also "independent" techies, of course - but those too often from well-off social strata and do not have much of a mind to subvert dominant culture on the social level (as opposed to in their personal habits).
... and I personally can't read the article since the corporate firewall I'm behind is blocking it, so that's kind of ironic :-(