They fact that such an obvious comment such as this is immediately downvote here is the strongest evidence of the truth of this statement I can imagine.

We only question the authority of monarchy because we have moved on to a more powerful system of control. 500 years ago, when monarchs where publicly viewed as divinely ordained (a similar but less sophisticated ideology that create the idea that companies should be totalitarian) even questioning the right of a king to his thrown as seen as heretical.

You're on a forum created by company whose goal is to create as many billion-dollar corporations as possible. It's unsurprising that its users do not appreciate such a reductionist take on corporations.

I hardly feel that claiming that corporations are able to exert the same type of non-democratic control over society as a monarchy through a complex system of ideological tools that make even pointing out the existence of such a power structure forbidden is reductionist.

And the idea that HN should be free from any critical or skeptical opinions of the current state of the tech industry is at least against the hacker spirit, which, for all of PGs faults, is at least part of the founding of this forum.

The article is about a woman sent to jail for 43 years. The worst thing a corporation can do is stop giving you money. You can then join a worker cooperative if you wish.

Users are also free to downvote what they want. There's a good chance you'll be downvoted for defending corporations on Reddit, for example.

> The worst thing a corporation can do is stop giving you money

In a late capitalist society a worker has no other means of survival other than to work for a corporation. In 1820, yes you could just go live on a farm and provide for you self but being cut off from a mean of living is not a small thing.

It idea that you can "just" be denied a means of living, and that this is no big deal is pretty laughable. You are quite literally paraphrasing Scrooges infamous speech about poorhouses.