Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our ruling class is extremely moralizing. They aren't relativist at all. They only seem that way to you because their morality isn't identical to yours (though they are genealogically related)
Okay sure. I don't buy that theory at all. The ruling class uses morals as a way to control society while having few themselves. Just look at the behavior of the Saudi royals.
> “I don’t know why it went down,” Haugen said. “But I know that for more than five hours, Facebook wasn’t used to deepen divides, destabilize democracies and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies.”
It's the sort of warmed-over end of history liberalism you see in Ivy League schools, NGOs, corporate HR departments, the UN, etc. It includes wokism but it extends much further than that. It is not becoming more relativist, it is supremely confident about what is good and what is bad, what is sacred, profane, taboo, etc. In fact, its conception of the sacred just seems to be getting larger each year. It has most of the elements of a religion at this point, and will probably have more in the future. I think Yang's "Successor ideology" is a good term for it because it also lacks a lot of the features of historical liberalism.
In any case, we are hardly ruled by libertines.