Big Tech dominates modern life. Their ideology is moral nihilism, prioritizing profit and control over ethical considerations or social responsibility. As a result, it controls what people see, what they buy, and how they communicate. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta shape economies and political discourse. Google, once known for its laughable ‘Don’t be evil’ motto, has fully embraced the power structures it claimed to challenge, prioritizing surveillance and corporate control over user rights. They prioritize profit, not public good. Their algorithms manipulate users. Their platforms extract data. Big Banks and super-rich families extend their influence deep into Big Tech, shaping it into a mechanism for spying and controlling given populations. Nationalizing them would serve society, not shareholders. Their engineers could focus on real progress, creating solutions for public welfare instead of optimizing digital addiction.
Big Tech: Firmly connected to the establishment
Furthermore, Big Tech does not operate independently. It is deeply tied to the establishment. The wealthiest investment firms, like BlackRock and Vanguard, hold massive stakes in these companies. Big Banks, hedge funds, and super-rich families use them to expand control. Executives rotate between corporate boardrooms and government positions. Policies favor monopolies. These companies make deals to ensure their products remain on top, strategically deciding which firms will dominate and which will be held back. At the same time, they essentially do not offer any real customer support, as providing assistance would be costly and would not generate profit. Instead, they rely on automated responses, forcing users into frustrating loops with no real help. By controlling market access, they suppress potential competitors and maintain their supremacy. Regulation remains weak.
The system ensures Big Tech serves elite interests, not the public. Government contracts fuel these corporations. At the same time, the Western establishment aggressively opposes foreign tech companies like TikTok, not because of any ethical concerns, but because they could conduct mass surveillance on Western populations instead of local intelligence agencies and corporate interests. This highlights the true motive behind regulations and bans targeting foreign tech firms—control over the flow of data and the ability to dictate surveillance priorities. The Pentagon, NSA, and CIA outsource surveillance technology to them. In return, these firms conduct mass surveillance, monitoring populations at an unprecedented scale, while supporting policies that maintain the power structure, ensuring their continued dominance. They need their population to be extortable, especially when someone becomes an influential person, allowing for control and manipulation when necessary.
Premade startups
In addition to governmental ties, Big Tech is also involved in the startup ecosystem, shaping innovation for private interests and ensuring that emerging technologies serve surveillance and control purposes. All startups are premade, designed not to disrupt the existing power structure but to reinforce it. One top engineer proclaimed that at least the smart people have a chance to meet each other and talk, but they don’t ‘invent anything.’ ‘Inventors’ are often just conformist, harmless figures installed to give an illusion of innovation and independence.
Super-rich families, venture capitalists, and intelligence agencies use these startups as experimental grounds. Some serve as fronts for data gathering, while others receive direct investment to develop technologies useful for surveillance. Many entrepreneurs unknowingly build tools that later integrate into state and corporate surveillance systems. Before they receive investment, psychological testing ensures they will obey the establishment, follow directives, and avoid questioning the deeper implications of their work. The connection between secret services and the tech world is undeniable. This hidden influence extends from Silicon Valley to major tech hubs worldwide, where funding and strategic partnerships ensure that emerging technology aligns with elite control structures.
The highest IQs
Moreover, these firms waste immense resources. Big Tech engineers have the highest IQs, making it a pity they are working for a system that prioritizes control over real progress. The people with the highest IQs should be applying their talents where they truly belong—advancing human knowledge, solving critical scientific challenges, and improving society rather than being confined to serving corporate interests. Bill Gates once admitted, ‘I mean the competition for talent. It’s all about IQ. You win with IQ. Our only competition for IQ is the top investment banks.’ He further stated, ‘There is no way of getting around [the fact] that, in terms of IQ, you’ve got to be very elitist in picking the people who deserve to write software.’
Despite this intellectual advantage, these engineers are largely confined to refining digital addiction and ad-driven algorithms rather than making meaningful contributions to science, medicine, or human advancement. They really don’t innovate; instead, Big Tech recycles old ideas, repackage existing technology, and focus on refining profit-driven mechanisms rather than genuine breakthroughs. They optimize ad revenue, track behavior and create social media addiction. Instead of solving humanity’s problems, they drive consumer manipulation. Engineers could develop solutions for climate change, medicine, and cybersecurity. Instead, they refine clickbait, track purchases, and fine-tune surveillance. Their data centers consume vast amounts of energy. Their supply chains rely on exploitative labor. Nationalization could redirect these resources toward productive, ethical goals. Therefore extending common good.
Nationalization to benefit
Nationalization would redirect their potential. Governments could restructure these companies into public institutions. Engineers could focus on AI for medical research. AI could revolutionize drug discovery. It could personalize treatment, ensuring targeted therapies for various diseases and optimizing patient outcomes. It could enhance diagnostics. Medical AI could predict pandemics and design cures. These companies have the infrastructure. They have the data. Their talent could advance science instead of selling ads. With proper funding and direction, AI could help cure cancer, develop treatments for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and create more effective therapies for neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. AI-driven drug discovery could eliminate years of trial-and-error research, significantly accelerating the availability of life-saving treatments.
Governments could restructure these companies into public institutions. Engineers could focus on AI for medical research. AI could revolutionize drug discovery. It could personalize treatment, making medical care more effective and accessible to diverse populations. It could enhance diagnostics. Medical AI could predict pandemics and design cures. These companies have the infrastructure. They have the data. Their talent could advance science instead of selling ads. Government-backed research has already led to major medical advances. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the core mRNA research behind COVID-19 vaccines. Publicly funded institutions have driven breakthroughs in cancer treatment, neuroscience, and epidemiology. With Big Tech’s resources reallocated, the pace of medical progress could accelerate.
Big Tech doesn’t know what democracy is
In contrast, public control would also democratize digital infrastructure. By prioritizing medical research, nationalized tech companies could work on global health initiatives, including advanced genetic therapies, vaccine development, and strategies for combating antibiotic resistance. They could also improve access to mental healthcare by creating AI-driven diagnostic tools, virtual therapy assistants, and predictive models for early detection of psychiatric disorders. Tech giants limit competition.
They suppress alternatives. They exploit small businesses. Nationalization would ensure free, open-source development. It would guarantee data privacy. It would eliminate censorship based on corporate interests. The internet would return to its original purpose—information exchange, not profit extraction. The U.S. government has a track record of successful technological investment. NASA developed satellite technology that benefits global communications. DARPA laid the foundation for the internet. The Human Genome Project, funded by public money, unlocked genetic insights that transformed medicine. These examples prove that government-driven innovation often surpasses corporate efforts in long-term impact.
Nationalization to benefit
On the other hand, critics argue nationalization stifles innovation. History proves otherwise. The internet, GPS, and countless breakthroughs came from public funding. Private monopolies hoard innovation. They patent technologies. They prevent widespread benefits. Public ownership would accelerate research, not slow it. Engineers would work on projects that matter. Society would benefit from their expertise. Telecommunications, once monopolized by AT&T, saw greater progress after public intervention led to its breakup. Similar government-led strategies could unleash suppressed potential in Big Tech.
To achieve this, the transition would require legal action. Governments could break up these corporations under antitrust laws. They could buy out controlling interests. They could introduce regulations that shift power. Nationalization does not mean bureaucratic stagnation. Independent research institutions could oversee innovation. Transparency would replace corporate secrecy. Public accountability would replace shareholder demands. Countries like Norway have successfully nationalized key industries like energy, ensuring public benefits without stifling competition. The same approach could apply to digital technology.
Ultimately, Big Tech behaves like an authoritarian power. It controls communication, dictates narratives. It tracks populations and it answers only to its investors. Nationalization would change that. It would put technology in the hands of people, not billionaires. Engineers would build solutions, not distractions. The goal is simple: make technology work for humanity, not against it. Nationalization would restore innovation to its true purpose—solving real-world problems and advancing civilization.
Leave a Reply