> That's not my criteria for how much power one should be allowed to wield. I'm merely pointing out that their power is probably not as great as you fear ("uns

> That's not my criteria for how much power one should be allowed to wield. I'm merely pointing out that their power is probably not as great as you fear ("unstoppable"). > We should hardly forgive the Saudis for their human-rights violations And yet we (China, U.S., Germany, Japan, etc.) have been for decades. In other words, many societies have made that bargain. > a corrupt authoritarian government can crack down on the mega-rich Disagree. Any entity (i.e. a government) having a monopoly on violence can crack down on tech companies and/or the mega-rich. If you can be arrested, your power can be curtailed. To put all of this in perspective, and to tie it back to your original comment, Twitter is smaller than Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, Snap, WeChat, Sina Weibo, Telegram, etc. It's smaller than Pinterest. This is nothing like a dystopian scenario in which the rich and powerful are all-powerful. It's not even on the level of, say, a Russian oligarch. Rather, it is a very rich individual (made so by his skill as an innovator and capital allocator) buying a relatively small and stagnant social network.