upvote
1 small guy changing stuff is basically impossible. But 100 million small folk sufficiently annoyed with something changes a government (for better and for worse), whilst having basically zero influence over a corporation (they're not the customer, they don't have enough buying power for a hostile takeover, they certainly don't have the wherewithal to destroy them by launching a competitor... which they probably don't even want to if they think what the corporation does is bad). The exception, of course, is that if the corporation bothers that many small people that much, a government might get around to listening to the small people's arguments more than the corporation's.
reply
> But 100 million small folk sufficiently annoyed with something changes a government (for better and for worse), whilst having basically zero influence over a corporation

They don't have influence because you designed them to be so. You said they're not the customer and implied they have no influence over customers.

Your argument says 100 million small folk in the same government jurisdiction have more government say vs 100 million small folk have in a company they have nothing to do with. That seems clear.

The inverse relation could also be said though. 100 million small folk in different government jurisdictions have less say in a government they have nothing to do with than 100 million customers of the same company do with a corporation.

reply
The illusion of control is stronger with modern democratic governments-but while it’s true that if we all voted for Vermin Supreme, he’d rule, it’s also true if we all stopped using Google they’d die quickly.

But neither is a realistic outcome. And neither do you personally have anything remotely near “control”. The reason everyone argues about this stuff online is that’s literally the only power we have.

However, the same effort and energy spent elsewhere can reap much, much bigger dividends down the line.

reply
Governments are local/national policy infrastructure.

So are big corporations.

Only one gives users any kind of democratic influence over policy.

And voting does make a difference. Ask New York.

reply
The President of the United States visibly hates me and keeps calling me a "Dumocrat". If Sundar Pichai did that, he'd be fired, and even people who despise my politics would generally understand why companies don't let their CEOs say such things.

But Congress won't fire Trump. All of my representatives would, if given a chance, but other representatives in other districts have no accountability to me and don't want to.

So I'm not sure how to avoid the conclusion that I have less practical control over the federal government than I do Google, even if the formal levers of power are meant to achieve a different result.

reply