> Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter have more institutional power than all elected officials combined.

This isn’t even close to true.

> Who will get to decide what's illegal?

The elected officials, as always. I’m so tired of this thought-terminating question. The democratic system is the piece that always closes that feedback loop. If you ever again need to ask “but who watches the watchers?!??!!” the answer is the voters.

> This isn’t even close to true.

Do you have anything better to say than just say it's not true? Zuckerberg injected millions into the elections. YouTube has censored public hearings. Twitter has censored a bombshell story and has banned a sitting president. Reddit's CEO admitted they have the power to "sway and election". And let's not forget the "fortifying" of the election (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/).

> The elected officials, as always. The elected officials, as always. I’m so tired of this thought-terminating question. The democratic system is the piece that always closes that feedback loop. If you ever again need to ask “but who watches the watchers?!??!!” the answer is the voters.

This is a very naive view of democracy. Politicians can restrict speech, suppress inconvenient information, create and promote false-crisis and inject or cut money to media companies so that it helps their re-election; thus creating a positive feedback loop where we see the same sitting president or the same dynasty in power for generations like in a lot of African "democracies".

In your first response, you defend the idea that tech companies have more power than the US government. In your second response, you decry the power the US government has.

Pick one.

The government can still abuse its power even if corporations have more power in terms of the influence they have, that's not even a contradiction, those two things can be true at the same time.

Also this also makes sense if you consider revolving door politics and the merger of corporation and state that happened the last 50 years.

If this is such a tiresome question, why is there so much ink spilled about voting rights/integrity? It seems you are one of the few people who think the system ensures oversight. If it isn't corrupt, perhaps. But what if it is? That is the situation many people think we are in now. Our elected officials do not represent the voters. They largely serve the interests of the donor class.

Guess what the remedy is for the problems you mentioned…

Voting.

It’s the fundamental feedback system in the US.

It is a system that is being threatened to irrelevance by institutional corruption. Voting as a feedback mechanism seems not to be able to survive the capture of our political and administrative institutions. There are other countries that demonstrate elections don't guarantee anything. It matters who makes the rules, and who can buy/count votes. Your response is very glib and inadequate to the challenges of democracy.

Iran, Russia and even North-Korea have elections....

In fact north Korea has mandatory voting

Vote for what?

Two parties = lack of people, ideas to vote FOR.

There are no easy answers here.