This feels like it rests on a belief that "nudging" and subliminal messaging are actually effective. The evidence on that stuff is pretty weak, and the evidence we do find has small effect sizes.
The reality is more likely that the "online world" is insanely complex and hard to control. Even with a tech oligopoly, the number of players and interests groups in massive. If companies had the power to completely control the entire world and every aspect of life, they would have (assuming they had the incentive, which I'm sure you believe they do).
In the case of controlling election outcomes, how is the current situation different from the pre-internet era of tv/radio advertising? Aren't political agents always trying to "control" elections? The core argument I'm making here is: doing so is very difficult
> Voluntary participation
That's only true for large groups of people. It's false for individuals. Try "voluntarily opting out" of whatever instant messaging platform is dominant where you live. You will be ostracized. Network effects make switching difficult.
> Digital serfdom and monetization of data
Benefits are irrelevant. Surveillance capitalism is sinister and exploitative despite the benefits it offers. Once data has been collected and transmitted, it's out there and it will never be fully deleted. There's no telling what it will be used for.
The increasing regulation is evidence that people are resisting technofeudalism, not that it doesn't exist.
> Innovation and competition
The technological world is filled with literal monopolists leveraging intellectual property to destroy competition and lower market efficiency. Technology companies may have displayed a pattern of innovation and disruption once but they have kicked the ladders out from under them a long time ago. They have absolutely no intention of allowing upstarts to disrupt them like they did to their predecessors.
Thus we get absolute nonsense like "anti-circumvention" laws which lead to "felony contempt of business model". They put artificial limitations into products so that people will pay to lift them. Then they make it illegal for others to lift the limitations.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
> Access to resources
The world wide web is now centralized in the hands of relatively few big tech companies and it's only getting worse over time. Nobody buys domains and starts their own site these days, they create social media accounts. Can't access much of anything without an Instagram or X account these days. Try joining a community without Discord.
> Global connectivity vs. local feudal systems
You can control the people of the entire world with computers. Their socialization, their education, their culture, their employment, the very flow of money, all of it is controlled by computers. It's easier than ever and you don't even need to commit violence. The lash is no longer literal but economic.
> Regulation and governance
Yeah, people are seeing the effects and they are resisting. This is evidence that there is something worth resisting.