Isn't this a bot farm? Don't they already exist and aren't they against TikTok's terms of service? The most surprising part of this article is that a16z invested in this.
also their website is unsettling https://doublespeed.ai/
In any case, their investment into this company just fits onto a trendline of high-capital antisocial behaviour.
> Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
>Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?
- The Godfather
Why would this surprise you?
I thought A16Z were a top-tier VC wanting to create long-term value. I didn't see black-hat social media bot farms in their focus areas.
It might be a bit facetious, but if I had 10m invested with them I'd be asking questions about their investment thesis.
Them investing in a troll farm is pretty on brand.
Social media has been a transparent race to the bottom for many years. The sooner it is shittified beyond repair the better. AI flooding content to them should help speedrun its descent, or maybe I’ve giving the average user (above child age) too much credit.
/s
!/s?
I'm not an expert on the antichrist, but I think they are at least better candidates than Greta Thunberg.
New Media Playbook https://a16z.simplecast.com/episodes/a16zs-new-media-playboo...
I still think it’s quite shocking.
I did some volunteer work with a non-profit conducting a survey in NYC about “food deserts”. I had to complete an hours long certification course—ethical boundaries and such—just so I can speak with people about fruits and vegetables. This audio makes it clear a16z’s rigorous approach to communication is coming from a dark and dangerous place.
This “playbook” speaks about _intentionally creating_ mental breakdown. Seems like an antichrist move to me.
* Y Combinator - vibe coders.
Are there any respectable VC tech companies out there in 2026?
This article in particular doesn’t have one. So it should be fine.
If this is the kind of thing you can do in the open as a "reputable" company with VC investment, I can only imagine the kind of horrific industrial-scale social media spam+slop botnets for hire that exist less publicly.
And still Wikipedia calls the dead internet a ‘conspiracy theory’
Introspection is basically THE core mechanism for learning. That's HOW one learns on any topic. It's not a "wishy washy hippie feeling" (being provocative here) but rather introspection is (and to be fair I verified with https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/ just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my own ass) precisely looking at your inner workings. How you function IN ORDER to do better. You notice flaws, inefficient behaviors, things you enjoy, etc THEN you act on it.
Having no introspection is like doing math without verifying. It's like coding without compiling, linting or even executing without looking at the output.
So dumb it hurts.
By the way, his notion that introspection is an "invention of the 1920s" is historical bullshit. I think he's taking potshots at psychotherapy? Whatever, man, but then do that. It's not like a Freudian concept of the self is beyond criticism - far, far from it - but using that to interdict "introspection" is just sloppy thinking.
Anyway, leaving aside anything else to be said on the topic, the idea that "great men of history don't introspect" is utter bullshit. I'll see you Abraham Lincoln, and raise you Marcus fucking Aurelius.
So, if what you really want to say is that "most 'great men of history' were sociopaths" then, well, yeah: you're probably onto something. If your next thought is "and I want to be like them", then that's 1) a pretty damning confession, and 2) also evidence that you, sir, aren't actually a sociopathic "great man" at all, just an insecure nerd who got lucky a few times, and now are getting high on your own farts.
And anyone that wants to use WW2 as a model for their theory of change is also (I hope) glossing over the abominable death toll. "Once sufficient 10s of millions of people die, everyone will be so horrified and traumatized by the widespread death and destruction that they'll be have no choice but to collaborate to enact the better world I'm picturing," beyond relying on an n of 1 and ignoring the decades of cold war that ensued, is also...hard to argue is worth it.
They invested in Cheddr.
We're building the TikTok of sports wagering. Accessible by 18 to 21 year olds. Live in game micro betting. Swipe to predict every moment. It's sports wagering at the pace of a slot machine.[1]
They invested in Coverd.
Bet on your bills — OnlyFans, child support, and last night’s Uber. Wipe them from your credit card by playing your favorite casino games all from the comfort of our app.[2]
"We didn't build Coverd to help people inhibit their spending; we built it to make spending exciting. We let spenders win twice – the second time is when they play it back and win. Our users want immediacy and upside. Coverd gamifies transactions with real financial leverage, meeting users where they are and turning spending into a moment they look forward to," said Albert Wang, co-founder & CEO of Coverd.[3]
[1] https://player.vimeo.com/video/1067223945
[3] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coverd-launches-app...
That hasn’t been the case since they publicly went all-in into crypto scams.
> It might be a bit facetious, but if I had 10m invested with them I'd be asking questions about their investment thesis.
Their fund sizes have skyrocketed since.
I nearly spit my coffee laughing at this.
Brother, the only value VC aims to create is the value in their pockets in an exit event.
Either by having the company acquired by the usual suspects or the jackpot of an IPO where the general public will be bagholders. The damage their investments caused to society is immaterial, negative externalities they don't need to account for.
> It might be a bit facetious, but if I had 10m invested with them I'd be asking questions about their investment thesis.
The obvious answer is that the sort of people that have 10m invested with them just care about ROI.
Wait till you hear about this one called YC.
I have a hypothesis that network effects kick in for social interaction before they do for monetisation, which is why the advertisers/influencers/propagandists/scammers(/trolls, though this is different) are in a constant state of hunting down and infesting whatever platform good-faith users have most recently fled them too. Part of it is likely that smaller communities are more robust and have an easier time identifying and repelling smaller-scale incursions, but I suspect a big part is that smaller communities simply aren't worth the investment of larger incursions, especially since they'll more easily be ruined before any real payout.
Anyway, I agree with you that "quality" (as in effort and craft) is lower on the list of factors than authenticity, which makes complete sense. There was a time when a well-crafted ad was worthy of note, but ads have been so sneaky and pervasive that I think many people are desperate to have a spontaneous interaction or experience that's not trying to sell them anything.