>elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public

No, they're not. The internet has allowed everyone to be effectively isolated and siloed, and fed pre-approved messages, all while fooling everyone into thinking they are more "connected".

SV 'titans' seem to think their authority and power should only increase.

doesnt make their observations less credible

I think it does: First, their response doesn't vary with the facts, suggesting it doesn't depend on the facts. Second, it does strongly match plain old megalomania and lust for power.

Look at the language: "samizdat", very clever, as if they are revolutionaries. They aren't revolutionaries, they are the vested powers, the most powerful business-people in the world.

Vary with what facts? You haven’t specified what facts they aren’t responding to, which makes this conversation very hard to have.

Secondly, the vast majority of people I’ve seen commenting on this phenomenon have been extremely minor social commentators, who have very little to gain in terms of personal power one way or the other. Myself included; I won’t be any more or less important if the traditional sources of cultural power and influence succeed or fall.

You don’t have to trust or like VCs, I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t declare a commentator to be invalid or untrustworthy because a VC really likes their book. That’s straight up guilt by association, and not terribly persuasive.

That seems like a response to my comment, but as if it was pasted into a different conversation that I'm unaware of, and I'm not sure what most of the parent refers to. Somehow, there is a misunderstanding here.