Of course you're not here to argue, there's no precedent for what you're suggesting. Nobody has fought against Apple, Google or Microsoft and taken home a significant victory.

This leads me to believe that the power structures can't be fixed. There is no amount of protesting that can coerce private capital to take humanity's best interests to heart, that's the tragedy of the commons. There is no guerilla warfare you can wage on a totalitarian platform like iOS or Windows; you simply lose in the end, because you are malware and the OEM is always right.

Movements like GNU/FOSS win because they don't even acknowledge the existence of corporate technology. They don't "fight" against anyone or make multi-billion dollar nemeses because it is a waste of volunteer hours that could go towards building something wonderful.

Your belief that "power structures can't be fixed" perfectly illustrates what educator Paulo Freire described as the oppressed having a "diffuse, magical belief in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor". Anthropologist David Graeber noted that modern capitalism has constructed a vast bureaucratic apparatus "designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures" and to ensure that challenging existing power arrangements seems like an "idle fantasy". The idea that the platform holder holds all the cards is an ideological tool used to encourage passivity and convince you that your only option is to submit.

As James C. Scott demonstrates in his analysis of authoritarian systems, any formally organized, rigidly planned system is ultimately parasitic on the informal, unscripted practices (which he calls mētis) of the people within it. A closed system cannot survive on its own rigid rules; it requires the constant, active cooperation and practical know-how of its subjects to function.

Gene Sharp's foundational theory of power echoes this: no regime, corporation, or totalitarian system possesses inherent power. Their power derives entirely from the cooperation, obedience, and skills of the people they govern or employ. If blue-collar technologists, developers, and users collectively withdraw their skills, labor, and cooperation, even the most monolithic tech empire can be paralyzed. The power of the OEM is not absolute; it is entirely contingent on your continued participation.

You point to the GNU/FOSS movements as successful because they ignore corporate nemesis-building and instead focus their volunteer hours on creating "something wonderful."

In the study of nonviolent struggle, building alternative social institutions and alternative communication systems are indeed recognized and highly effective methods of intervention. Furthermore, creating "commons" (like open-source software) is crucial because it provides a practical model for a non-commercial way of life.

However, building alternative commons is not a substitute for directly challenging power. As Silvia Federici argues, creating commons must be seen as a complement to the struggle against capital, not an alternative to it. If you only build wonderful alternatives without contesting the power of private capital, your creations remain vulnerable to being enclosed, commodified, or crushed by the very monopolies you are trying to ignore.

Ignoring the oppressor does not make them disappear. If technologists want to reclaim power, the first step is to reject the neoliberal fatalism that views the current corporate dominance as an unchangeable law of nature. Power concedes nothing without a demand, and the limits of tech monopolies are prescribed entirely by the endurance of the people who build and use them.

Oppressors are not a monoculture. Sometimes they are extremely entrenched, sometimes they are fragile like a teacup. Sometimes they seek decelerationist and traditionalist narratives, while others seek accelerationist and neoliberal ideals. Outlining "oppression" as a dialectical certainty is why revolutionary politics die in the cradle while capitalism has Billions Served written under the sign. Reality is convoluted, and politics are not a computer that transist from "populist" to "authoritarian" depending on the program you run. Plenty of revolutionary history has taught us that.

Framing Apple, Google or Microsoft in this manner is counterproductive and does not produce any serious roadmap to undermine their behavior. The will to change has to come from the top, or else it will never be conclusively realized or codified. Change has to be genuine and desirable, or else someone else will come along to copy FAANG and take their place. This is why regulation provoked such a strong anti-intervention sentiment from businesses; it works. A USB-C iPhone was inevitable, but only once you changed incentive to punish lock-in.

On oppression's flip side, one could argue that the continued success of businesses like IBM provides precedent for private capital to aid and abet mass atrocities without ever facing real punishment. Internal revolution has never produced results in these circumstances, and I don't think it ever will. You can't rely on mushy-gushy feelings to make people do what's right, you have to lay down the law in black-and-white.

The law is captured and always so by the most powerful

So your solution is to trust the powerful to do the right thing?

Bingo! You can't expect capital to regulate itself.

Although, hell, at least some bureaucrats and Democrats actually think doing the right thing will secure their privileges.

I trust law more than I trust lawlessness. My solution is advocating for pragmatic change, with apologies to anarchists and theorists everywhere.

> Mushy gushy feelings

Capitalist realism is the most mushy gushy, vibes-based ideological cowardice at large, today.

Sure, oppressive power structures are not a static monolith, and they constantly morph and reinvent themselves to survive. However, the conclusion that change must therefore come strictly from the "top" via "black-and-white" regulation (or that that bottom-up revolution relies on "mushy-gushy feelings"!!) misses how both state regulation and nonviolent resistance actually function in reality.

While top-down regulation (like the EU mandating USB-C) can force specific consumer changes, relying on the "top" to conclusively lay down the law ignores the reality of regulatory capture. The state is not a neutral, objective arbiter; it is heavily influenced by the very private capital you wish to regulate.

Or is regulatory capture just a mushy gushy delusion?

If you rely exclusively on top-down regulations to protect humanity's best interests, you are relying on a legal apparatus that is constantly being bought, rewritten, and defanged by the very entities it is supposed to regulate.

Again, you correctly point out that if FAANG falls, someone else will just copy them and take their place. Sociologist Beverly Silver describes this exact dynamic as the core survival mechanism of capitalism. When corporations face intense pressure, regulation, or labor unrest, they do not simply accept defeat; they implement fixes. They relocate to regions with cheaper labor and fewer regulations (as previously discussed in this thread), and they automate or restructure the workplace to disempower workers.

Furthermore, they abandon heavily regulated or highly competitive industries altogether and move their capital into entirely new, unregulated product lines (like moving from manufacturing to tech and finance). This endless shell game guarantees that playing "whack-a-mole" with individual companies via regulation will never conclusively end exploitative behavior. Capital will simply shift to a new product cycle or a new geography to escape the new laws.

On the other hand, nonviolent struggle relies on coercion. It does not rely on converting the opponent or appealing to their morality—in fact, conversion is the rarest mechanism of success as you may already surmise.

Political power requires constant, active cooperation: it needs human resources, skills, knowledge, and administrative compliance to function. By systematically withdrawing labor, obedience, and technical skills, the working class does not appeal to a CEO's conscience; it cuts off the very sources of the ruler's power, paralyzing the system. To nonviolently coerce an opponent means to create a situation where, despite their resolution not to give in, they are physically and economically unable to defend their policies because the system can no longer operate.

> They relocate to regions with cheaper labor and fewer regulations [...] and they automate or restructure the workplace to disempower workers.

That's a total, unqualified victory. If your regulation is intended to stop people exploiting your customers or labor base, the best possible outcome is that exploitative fuckbags pack up their stuff and leave. This is what we're seeing in California, where every single Fortune 500 company is writing about how awful their taxes are, without acknowledging the damage that private capital did.

Regulatory capture is always going to be a matter of perspective, but that doesn't stop me from advocating for it. This is a zero-sum argument and you wouldn't need to reach for it if revolution was a successful premise.

> Capital will simply shift to a new product cycle or a new geography to escape the new laws.

It's a free country, let them. Someone has to water-test reality, and I'm fine letting private capital waste money on terrible ideas that they can be fined for in the long run. I don't weep for the world we might live in if Microsoft was allowed to bully Netscape and Java. They made the terrible idea, and they earn their just desert.

> By systematically withdrawing labor, obedience, and technical skills, [...] it cuts off the very sources of the ruler's power, paralyzing the system.

You haven't cited a single instance of this working. I have cited four distinct counterexamples, now.

I'm glad that you're engaging with theory, but it's not my job to simulate the myriad reasons why this hasn't worked. We have 30 years of postmodern software capitalism to examine, and at the end it says "Palantir" in extra-bold typeface. Conscientious objection didn't seem to do much in WWII, didn't change after the Snowden revalations, and today we are deeper-entrenched in anti-human software than ever.

Appealing to workers isn't enough. You have to convince the top, and revolution is how you hand them consent to exercise their monopoly on violence.

I could give you examples, but I'm tired.

You should take it upon yourself to interrogate the foundations of your comfortable life.

The unexamined life is not worth living.