The wording of that title is very interesting. It's a perfect example of 'bureaucratic style'[1]. First, the passive voice. This is an article about people loo

The wording of that title is very interesting. It's a perfect example of 'bureaucratic style'[1]. First, the passive voice. This is an article about people looking at tech giants, but the passive voice centralizes the companies. That associates the change with companies, not observers, and also makes the claim seem more objective by downplaying the fact that this is about potentially-inaccurate perceptions. Second, the missing subject. This goes beyond indefinite pronouns to fully absent pronouns; who's doing the seeing and the viewing? Since the best answer is "writers like me at media outlets like this one", it makes sense that it wasn't mentioned. Third, the acausal and discrete setup. Things used to be that way, now they're this way, these are just states of being without a transition or source. Lest someone notice that David Streitfeld has built his career promoting exactly this transition, and is perhaps not simply reporting on a change he observed, the title directs attention away from what shaped perception. And to be fair, it's just a pithy title, and there's a whole article here. (Although many of these approaches continue throughout.) But it's an interesting thing to analyze how the distinction between "people see this" and "this is reality" is blurred so aggressively in so few words. [1] https://longreads.com/2017/04/12/the-elements-of-bureaucratic-style/ https://longreads.com/2017/04/12/the-elements-of-bureaucrati...