> Politicians are people just like everyone else, they're just responding to incentives created by a majority vote. I don't think this is remotely true, and fe

> Politicians are people just like everyone else, they're just responding to incentives created by a majority vote. I don't think this is remotely true, and feels like victim blaming. No one is voting for monopolies and exploitation. At most you have people voting for tax cuts and the hopes of improved economies, which are then faced with a bait-and-switch of erosion of legal rights and protection and further anticompetitive practices. These so-called "food delivery" companies are the worst example possible as they are renowned for the way they exploit employees with blatant violations of basic labor laws. No one voted for that. > Tech companies are just like any other company, except a lot more people are willing to pay for their goods and services. No. Their whole business model is based on exploitation to the point some countries had to force them to finally get their riders into actual employment contracts. > I'm actually far from convinced that tech companies are a net negative for society. Amazon makes billions because everyone wants competitively priced goods delivered to their doorsteps. Google makes billions because they provide free access to a large portion of humanity's information. You have a far too naive and out of touch view on the problem, much like a few years ago people from colonial powers believed their presence was net positive for natives as that meant they could receive a salary for waiting on them hand and foot. Amazon's example is even more laughable as the company is notorious for exploitative and outright abusive labor practices. I understand you like to receive packages, but I seriously recommend you read something on the topic because their impact on society is far from net positive.