Private equity (what's being described here) has more political influence than "society" because money.

Society has more money and way more votes than PE. I'm going to quote A Bugs Life (1998) of all things here:

> Hopper: You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line.

In our case, it's more like a million to one

▲

ImPostingOnHN 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I suspect that the free cash flow of those who seek fewer regulations of this sort on thing exceeds the free cash flow of those who seek more.

People that are being squeezed by PE have less money to wield as political influence partially because they are being squeezed by PE.

The ones doing the squeezing are ok with that.

The people who are uninvolved, who fit into neither box, don't care enough or don't have enough money they're able & willing to part with. They also don't have fancy accountants or corporate accounts to expense it to.

This is the local optimum.

	▲	johnnyanmac an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>The people who are uninvolved, who fit into neither box, don't care enough That lack of care is going to cost us all in ways we'll be forced to care about one day. Not necessarily for Vimeo, but definitely much more important things that people are ignorant or actively turning their heads against. > They also don't have fancy accountants or corporate accounts to expense it to. We call them our represenatives. We expense it to them with our votes (and literal expenses with tax dollars we are forced to part with). But votes require care and we're back in the loop.