So, as I read through the comments on this post I see a lot of indifference to her argument and a lot of anger toward the government. Government is broken. Government uses outdated, bespoke technology from the 90s. Technology is not a priority. Government is inefficient. (I could say the same things about much of the not-for-profit community as well).
Those are all true, but that's partially because the exact people in Silicon Valley who are capable of bringing expertise to the table are not willing to. Government's so broken it is not worth fixing is exactly the attitude that ensures that government continues to be broken. There aren't many people who live in the Valley who ask themselves how they could give back or improve society with the skills they have.
For example, there was just a search conducted for a new CIO of San Francisco--what would that position look like if one well-qualified engineering manager from HN left their job at Google or Facebook, sucked it up and dove in? I'll tell you what would happen--a lot of good stuff for our city and our society. I'm currently in the civic tech community of practice nationally (Today is perhaps the last day I can claim that, more on that below), and there aren't enough people who “get” it who are willing to work in government, but that's exactly the problem that needs to be solved. The person I know who is doing the most innovative work in civic technology is Brett Goldstein, the CIO of Chicago, who use to be the head of IT Services at OpenTable before becoming a beat cop, director of analytics for Chicago Police, Chief Data Officer of Chicago, and now CIO.[1]
Lets take another view of this point--there is to my knowledge no software developer in Congress. That seems like a problem to me and one that comes from the fact, perhaps, that developers are less likely to throw themselves in to politics in their 40s because of a lack of expertise. That doesn't seem to stop lawyers and other businesspeople though. I think we would be having a slightly different national conversation about technology, innovation, the internet and even the very methods by which we solve problems in our society (for the better) if some Silicon Valley folks sucked it up and got a little more involved in politics or, you know, in improving the lives of poor people. The I AM a geek campaign.
(By the way, I'm inherently skeptical of Ron Conway's Sf.Citi, which is basically a glorified lobbying organization against the payroll tax in SF. But, having said that, I think the attitude could be useful. I've heard it said by a few Silicon Valley billionaires that they don't want to give money to, for example, education because they don't know anything about education. What they know is how to build software products. Since that's so, why can't we come up with software products as philanthropy rather than give up on giving back [2]).
I think some of the passion is there but there needs to be new ways to focus that energy collectively. Just as an example, I co-founded Datakind (formerly Data Without Borders), which matches pro bono data science capacity from people who work at, for example, Google or Bit.ly, with not-for-profits that have defined data science needs and projects. The hard part here was not in finding the data science capacity--tons of people volunteered--or the not-for-profits--tons of them have signed up--but in the interface between the two. That's why the organization needs to exist, but it also points to the fact that the ecosystem of doers in Silicon Valley should give some thought of how to act as a community to bridge those gaps and provide support and help beyond the peninsula.
Lastly, as a personal note, I am keenly interested in this whole thing. Today is my last day as Senior Tech Policy adviser to Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker. I am starting next week at Stripe. The more I have worked on civic technology, the more I realized I wished I knew more about and had experience in technology in the private-sector. I feel like a sort of false prophet — one who had read about revelation but who has never experienced it himself. But my passion is in and around using technology to innovate in the civic space, particularly within government. I feel the best long-term play to do that is to work at an engineering-focused, growing, tech company for a few years. Then I can tack back to civic tech--because innovation rarely comes from people who are too far down the rabbit hole of any field. I can likely come back to civic tech after working in the private sector but there are only a few years (without a wife/partners and kids) where I am willing to work my ass off at a startup.
I mention all this about my own life to say that although government is hard and addressing societal problems is hard it's only by choosing to care that we can make a difference. That sounds corny, but if government is broken and you're an expert at revolutionizing business process, why don't you spend a few years working on it. I am not suggesting that everyone organize their life as I have, but if you really cared about the hardest problems you could find why isn’t addressing civic and social problems on your list?
[1] cf. https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doit/auto_genera..., http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/..., http://magazine.uchicago.edu/1102/arts_sciences/byte-cop.sht...
[2] I take a crack at one, not particularly modest, suggestion on this at http://www.ash.harvard.edu/Home/Programs/Innovations-in-Gove...