There's an important difference between corporations and governments. Corporations rarely get a monopoly and in the event that they do they don't last forever. Once a government gets power it almost always keeps it forever.
Consumer tech corporations, do seem to end up with monopolies — and they'll fight, lobby, and pay (through acquisitions) to keep them. It's a complete red-herring to argue that they don't last forever since that's utterly irrelevant to the impact they can have while they are around.
Google's been around for almost 20 years now, FB didn't kill it. FB has been around for 14 years and can sway elections.
If you want privacy from government, then you'll only get it if you can be private from corporations. They basically run things anyway via lobbyists.
You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit.
CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting).
>You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit.
No I'm not. I'm acknowledging that advertising has always worked.
>CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting).
I think you're over-estimating FB's ability to impact elections compared to being one of only 3 television channels. Particularly given the fact that we're not really talking about FB itself impacting the election, but competing parties utilizing the semi-neutral FB platform to advertise.
Perspective is everything I guess. For the issues I care about most the difference between those US Presidents is largely cosmetic. So I would have presented them as evidence in my favor.
