I think the confusion is around whether "like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online" is a good thing. It's easy to read

I think the confusion is around whether "like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online" is a good thing. It's easy to read this as not just "[starting this company]", but "[starting this company] [and growing it into a huge success with mixed benefits for everyone]." I.e., Russell Okung or others might read that in terms of what it implies; but Google by itself neither furthers nor reduces global income inequality to my knowledge. That's not one of its priorities or missions. But starting it! Starting it was key. And "income equality" was key to starting it as it is to starting most companies. Is the original wording wrong in PG's essay wrong? No, but it's easy to misread unless it's emphasized. E.g., the desire for "economic inequality" as a catalyst for starting companies is great. It can be hugely successful and useful in many ways. But as soon as a large company has shareholders etc. one of its primary goals is to maintain capital for itself, which is generally speaking in favor of income inequality in more negative ways for the general public, one could argue. Russell Okung's point at the end is I think actually built on teasing apart this conflation: "I urge you, Graham, along with the rest of the community, to return to your first love. Build people up."