oh, sorry dude... I wasn't expecting the indirect insult to be the only thing you read... my intent was less for you to take offense, and more to point out how you're arguing against something I never said and don't believe. I would have been interested in the reasoning behind the claim, and the parallels you saw, but was unwilling to tolerate the strawman.
Thanks. I'm sorry I jumped to the conclusion that you were making the doomer arguement. I see now your argument is much more subtle and raises some interesting points. If I understand it correctly, it's like what if one company owned the internet? But worse than that, what if one company owned access to intelligence? I'm old so I remember when AT&T owned the American phone system. We couldn't hook up anything to the phone jack without permission, so intuitivly I did understand your argument, but my opposition to doomer arguments (pause research! regulate!) got in the way.