I don't remember tech bros really existing the way they do now. We were still over a decade out from the iPhone, from mass adoption of video games, from ubiquitous cell phones. The kind of wannabe playboy technofascist celebrity that's been a dominant cultural force since the Steve Jobs cult fired up really wasn't on the scene yet.

I think that's reflected in the portrayal of the hippy fascists being very sensitive to aggression - the running swearing gag, the guy getting shallow emotional counselling from the public phone/computer terminal, the use of pastels and kimonos as formal dress, the food not having salt. It's an early version of "soy" and reflects the same kind of anxiety about late 20th century masculinity that Fight Club tapped in to. But then it softens and subverts that somewhat when John actually finds he enjoys knitting, and there's a theme of John's authentic aggression meeting Bullock's character's nostalgia for violence, and how her desire for the violence of the past isn't good. The authors are saying that, soy or not, the la of the 90s often was violent, polluted, and difficult and the soy future isn't intended to be read as inherently bad, rather than some restrictions and regulations went beyond the point of benefit.

The end where the one cop defects to the rebels is, I think, supposed to show a thesis-antithesis synthesis thing implying that they're going to keep all the good aspects of the utopian society, but with the real villain gone they'll be able to relax the enforced social and cultural conformity and people will be able to live more authentically.

That's all part of what I like about it. It doesn't outright fall in to shouting homophobic slurs like a lot of contemporary macho movies, it toys with different conceptions of masculinity, it's very self-aware about it's genre, it critques utopia without going all in on libertarian brain worms.