Well, I mean when you write a book and explicitly say that you believe your company needs to take an active role in guiding global human culture, does it really make it a 'conspiracy'? His viewpoint is not as radical as some people might take it to be. Up until the American Revolution, basically every society operated under the notion that some people are fundamentally 'better' than other people. Kings, queens, chieftans, whatever, were not simply people who were good at leading, they were all believed to be either chosen by or literally a god. It was seen as natural and proper that those people would lead, and that other people were born to follow.
To accomplish great things, it was believed, those leaders have to take the reigns and direct the commoners or else they would tear themselves apart in anarchy. A great many of the upper class still believe this to be the situation (which is partially psychological self defense, believing that they were simply lucky would lead to many feeling very bad about having so much more than almost everyone else). While something like YouTube becoming a way for tons of people to make a decent living, and that becoming the dominant means through which media is created and consumed, as opposed to centralization of media production and consumption under a handful of more directly controlled companies sounds like a renaissance to most people, to them it sounds like outrageous stupidity. It sounds like letting the rats chew through one of the pillars holding our society aloft.