No.

Reality is reality. Her statement was based on reality.

Inventing some nonexistent fantasy where her statement is wrong isn’t a useful exercise.

Yes, it’s possible that in the future there may be some person that manages do be worth billions by themselves, but that doesn’t exist today so isn’t relevant to her statement

I appreciate you would really like people to agree with you here, but you've made your argument cage wrapped so tight you fail to recognize the people just outside who support a lot of where you want to be.

Working through a world where some condition proves true is useful to inform logical policy. It admittedly doesn't make for a sexy soundbite and is a lot harder to work through, but it has substantial use (1) to both justify the morality of a policy/action in the real world and (2) to anticipate a potential real world scenario where a single person makes a billion dollars in a SaaS.

Just because pg is `not even wrong` doesn't mean we have to be as well.