> Also, in this definition, why are the "lords" able to "generate enormous wealth" just like capitalists? Feudal lords generated their wealth from exploiting

> Also, in this definition, why are the "lords" able to "generate enormous wealth" just like capitalists? Feudal lords generated their wealth from exploiting the lands they held. Generally, they don't make more land, but when the world wide web came into being, there was suddenly a ton of new land! Between 2000-2015, the tech giants consolidated much of that land (and thus the wealth) - giants like Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Adobe and MSFT can absolutely be viewed as imperialist, and they operate in that manner internally. > So.. is Facebook forcing me to hand over some of my wealth by using violence, with the agreement that they will also use their monopoly on violence to protect me from Snapchat, if I sign up to Facebook? Kind of. Facebook is using economic and legal violence, rather than physical. They won't send a squad of knights to your house to punish you, but they are attempting to create a system where your only options are to use their service, in the manner they want you to use it (i.e. the one that maximizes their revenues). Why run a business when you can collect the gabelle? Sure, they don't own Snapchat, they certainly tried, but they own Instagram, Whatsapp, and hundreds of other startups they've taken out of the market. You still have some options (TikTok, Snapchat) because Meta's dominance is incomplete and the state doesn't fully support them having a monopoly.