Tech leaders increasingly call for the "democratic process" to establish guardrails on AI. This is a self-serving tactic, as their platforms have actively eroded the deliberative, shared discourse necessary for democracy to function. They ask a weakened system to regulate them, knowing it will struggle.

The promise that technology—from personal computers to the internet to social media—will democratize society is a recurring ad campaign. While new tech offers democratizing potential, powerful actors and existing structures consistently adapt to re-centralize control and consolidate power.

Altman’s prominent role as the face of OpenAI products despite his 0% ownership stake highlights a shift where control over narrative and access to capital is more valuable than direct ownership. This “modern mercantilism” values influence and power over traditional cap table percentages.

Kara Swisher's story about Mark Zuckerberg's Tiananmen Square photo shows how leaders become blind when surrounded by enablers. When she criticized the photo, Zuckerberg replied that his team saw no problem. Swisher’s response: "every f—ing person on your team is paid by you." This highlights the danger of leadership echo chambers.

Despite different political systems, the US and Chinese internets have converged because power is highly centralized. Whether it's a government controlling platforms like Weibo or tech oligarchs like Elon Musk controlling X, the result is a small group dictating the digital public square's rules.

Mark Zuckerberg's promotion of an open, empowering AI is less about genuine philosophy and more about preemptive regulation and reputation management. He's trying to shape the narrative because Meta is behind competitors like OpenAI and needs to counter concerns about the concentration of power—a power Meta itself wields in social media.

Kara Swisher identifies Mark Zuckerberg as the most dangerous tech leader. This isn't necessarily due to malicious intent, but because he combines immense, centralized power with a track record of carelessness and an inability to be removed from his position. This combination poses a greater societal risk than the actions of other tech billionaires.

We have replaced religious figures with tech CEOs, viewing them as saviors with our best interests at heart. This 'idolatry of innovators' makes us forget their primary job is to increase shareholder value by any legal means, even if it causes societal harm. We shouldn't trust them; we should regulate them.

Societal polarization is not just ideological but algorithmic. Social media platforms are financially incentivized to amplify divisive content because "enragement equals engagement," which drives ad revenue. This creates a distorted, more hostile view of reality than what exists offline.