I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

So here's the standard socialist's argument: Corporations tend to have very strong incentives to expand. Naturally, they'll eventually find some reason to expand overseas. And at that point, economic stability ends up being dependent on foreign policy decisions -- by governments that govern other people. And in order to maintain economic stability (and continued expansion) foreign policy will gradually but inevitably shift to a position of "protecting economic interests" through the application of the powers of making war.

And in a democratic capitalist society, this means that big decisions about whether war should be waged or what treaties should be agreed to is no longer the business of the common people, it is the business of whoever can force foreign nations to support this kind of "capitalist... imperialism" (for lack of a better term.)

The victims are the population of a democracy that has had its sovereignty erased by pinning the survival of their economy (and country) on the continued success of privately controlled industries.

>Identifying specific victims and offenders, on the other hand, is how one motivates change.

Is "tragedy of the commons" a familiar term? There are no specific offenders or victims here. Just a slow breakdown of society. Once you can identify specific agents, it is too late. The cow that eats the last blade of grass might get a nasty sentence, but everybody loses just the same.

Which is not what a government is.

> Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition.

The whole discussion is based on the idea that just because Facebook has rules and somebody in charge, it's equivalent to the government of a state and should be thought about as such. That's absolutely absurd unless you think that every association of people in which someone is dominant or customs exist has its own "government". Pointing that out is focusing on the "material of the discussion".

They have no sovereignty, no expectation to the rights thereof. They do not answer to everyone that their decisions affect. They are social constructs that happen to shuffle around information, own assets, and generate revenue.

It is CRITICAL that no one makes the mistake that these businesses are anything more than the path of least innovation to solving problems.

The tech industry has a major hubris problem. They don't need people mistaking them for legitimate governments to make it even worse.

Every person needs to understand that no software product is really a big thing. The reason they SEEM big is the sheer data magnitudes involved. Most of which the layman has no real concept of.

They have rules (jurisprudence). They make rules(congressional). And they mete out punishment for not following said rules (executive). They have a standing military to enforce (lawyers in the countries of presence).

Sure seems like a government to me. They certainly aren't ones I approve of.

> It is CRITICAL that no one makes the mistake that these businesses are anything more than the path of least innovation to solving problems.

The answer is, that some of these entities are past "businesses". When an organization resides within 20 countries, and their computing cloud and business infrastructure is everywhere, what exactly do you call that?

If anything, it seems like a meta-government. Or a virtualized government over local governments.

> The tech industry has a major hubris problem. They don't need people mistaking them for legitimate governments to make it even worse.

You are adding "legitimized". Nobody would say that Duterte's government is legitimate. Or the large handful of tin-pot dictators. The Googles, Amazons, Microsofts of the world are indeed governments. But they are amoral capitalist dictators.

> Every person needs to understand that no software product is really a big thing. The reason they SEEM big is the sheer data magnitudes involved. Most of which the layman has no real concept of.

It's because software is a multiplier of work that we've never seen the likes before. What better use can be had with software, than controlling the proletariat? We need look no further than the degradation of ownership (IP), rental versus purchase of hardware and virtual goods, and the "Gig-ifying" of low end workers.