It's effectively the same. Monarchy isn't a king ruling over lords, it's a king balancing the interests of the lords so that they continue to grant him his king

It's effectively the same. Monarchy isn't a king ruling over lords, it's a king balancing the interests of the lords so that they continue to grant him his kingship. A king who fails to balance this properly can easily lose his head. Monarchies are just disguised oligarchies, and e.g. Fascist Germany was no different - Hitler had to balance the interests of the various groups against each other enough so as not to lose his head, which in the end completely failed at the toll of millions dead. A government "controlling" megacorps also need to balance these megacorps & other mega-influencers so that no one group becomes too powerful and too dissatisfied enough to overturn the current ruling system. Megacorps like Google obviously have plenty of tools at their disposal even in a democracy with "fair & free & secure elections" via shadow-banning, increasing prices/costs, curtailing suggestions, labeling disinformation, decreasing visibility, etc., to attempt to sway public opinion sufficiently to cause a desirable election outcome. This is before even attempting to actually sway elections via election rigging, ballot stuffing, etc., or bypass elections entirely through some sort of pseudo-paramilitary action (e.g. coup). Of course, the more blatant these actions become, the more the interests of the other important influences can come into play (e.g. if Google ever did attempt a paramilitary coup, they would need heavy support elsewhere to ensure the military or the States didn't stop it), whereas Google shadow-banning certain political views can go largely ignored if it's not perceived by the public to matter much.