> Working on something means you put in effort, not that it's focused properly or that you even understand the real issues
They definitely understand them far more than you, who has zero experience with them and regularly makes fallacious arguments and outright incorrect claims about them.
> Their interests are implicitly considered and they're transmitted on channels you and I don't have access to.
Where, exactly?
> You are conflating winning a popular election with leading for the people.
No, you failed to actually read their comment correctly. Their comment was a refutation of your claim that "money is a superpower so the more one has, the more one can take". They were not claiming that winning an election meant leading for the people, only pointing out the evidence against your claim.
> Because if you aren't saying this, you aren't saying anything.
What does this even mean?
> you'll keep blaming "the lazy" that things don't change
Fact: active participation from voters is a necessary precondition for a democracy to survive.
> showing up to fight for digital privacy, or almost anything that's not life and death, is the least of their concerns
Yes, that's correct, but those same people don't participate on politics at all, with any of the time that they have. The middle class doesn't participate. I've literally never heard a friend or acquaintance of mine say that they've ever contacted a representative (in federal or state government) about a political issue. This factually is an issue of people being lazy and disengaged, because of the fact that people with lots of disposable time and income don't put in the effort.
> You decided to label them "lazy". Ever wondered if your work "on these issues" is tainted by this opinion
No, it's a trivial implication of the nature of democracies. If you don't get that active participation is necessary for democracies to survive, you fundamentally don't understand how democracies work.
This is also an extremely lazy cop-out (which is thematically consistent) where you're dismissing someone's opinion because they have more experience than you in that field...which is insane.
> that's why ultimately all you can achieve is only for the people who can afford it
And, again, this is factually incorrect as to the root of the problem, because the people who can afford to participate in politics (which at the very least includes the middle-class) do not.
> No wealth means no power, not even personal agency, let alone in national policy.
This is also factually incorrect. The eligibility to vote has zero requirements as to income or wealth. Bezos gets the exact same number of votes as I do, despite having orders of magnitude more wealth. And guess how our representatives get elected?
You should really consider listening to someone who has actual experience in the relevant field rather than spewing fallacies and factual inaccuracies.