[abellerose]

I assume the US has always been an oligarchy and never truly a democracy at the federal level. The American people just get to vote from either the two parties that desire whoever to be elected and where hundreds of millions are spent with a lot of nonsense that's off-topic.

Understandably tech is arguably in infancy but nothing like the decades before today. So the tech monopolies of today weren't a thing before but people had so much opportunity in the earliest years; that resulted in money being easy to be made with little concern of whatever outcome. Nowadays platforms control most of the market and people are now starting to notice an oligarchy in tech. Resulting in concern propagating in recent years.

It's well known a lot of people in society don't have a voice and when they're wronged by the system(s) of society; whether it be authoritarian or not. I'm unsure if we can really prove current day is worse or better than previously in history regarding to having a voice/impact when being wronged. My question is how do we justly blame a worse outcome on a tech oligarchy and when we cannot know the foregoing being worse or better than the past?

[082349872349872]

The pre-internet saying was "freedom of the press is for those who own one." (journalists like to think of themselves as professionals, but publishers are not journalists. These days I guess we have to mention that random people with a truck and vlog are "journalists" in the same sense that random people with headphones and an open incognito tab are "scientists")

For your amusement, WASP self-parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0 "haters like to ???? ?? our ivy league education / but they're just jealous 'cause our families run the nation"

(as far as I can tell, this commerical was only aired in New England. That's OK, the P-word is their word, they can use it. "Sloane Ranger" for our brit friends, I suppose. It's "Goldküstenmilieu" here. What is the term in your countries?)