>>13687478This
People in government have clearly figured this out: that while citizens might protest a totalitarian government, which punishes you for opinions it doesn't like, or which censors them, people will not protest the same effect as long as the government outsources the dirty work to private corporations.
Never mind whether megacorporations like google or amazon are closely involved with the government (they are) to the point that distinguishing between government and private action can sometimes be difficult (like amazon setting up massive surveillance networks for the government). Apparently, it is enough for people to see that TECHNICALLY, the action they don't like was carried out by a private business, and therefore they'll take it without complaint. No big deal if society is steadily being censored, the government didn't technically do it personally, so it's ok. The end result is functionally equivalent, but technically, it's ok. So nobody ever protests.
The government is well aware of this, so they're using it as a way to remain de jure democratic, in the sense that the faces in charge can change, while being de facto totalitarian through private business as a proxy, in the sense that the policies will never change, and you will, more and more, be punished for having an opinion which is out of line. But as long as the government isn't personally administering the punishment, nobody protests. Many don't ever spot the trick. Some people even defend it.
