[paulryanrogers]

So if a dictator's hold on power is weak, is it not a dictatorship? Imagine there have been 2 coups over 15 years, yet both produced a winner-takes-nearly-all outcome.

Not sure it matters much if you're at the bottom and have to bow to one for a while then the other.

[roenxi]

Put it this way; your comment could be a veiled description of US politics. The typical democracy simulates a coup every 2-5 years in a winner-takes-all contest. If if you're at the bottom and have to bow to one party for a while then the other. Indeed, the description is so apt that everyone ritualistically accuses their political opponents of actually fomenting a coup (powered by Russia/China/Israel/Bill Gates/mobilising dead people/gerrymandering/the electoral college being illegitimate/whatever).

So yes, I do actually believe that. If the hold on power is weak enough it doesn't count as a dictatorship.

[paulryanrogers]

The difference is an effective balance of power between branches of a government. Dictators have unchecked power (at least in practice) until they're deposed.

Similarly many of today's tech giants are difficult to escape, especially as network effects drive toward centralization of power.