Don't you think it might have something to do with the fact that they're growing larger and more powerful and influential? It wasn't that long ago that Apple became the world's largest company, Jeff Bezos was recently named the world's richest man, etc.
Exactly. They aren't the picked upon underdogs no matter how many of us might still think of them that way. They are major power centers in our societies that can and do go toe to toe with other major power centers. These major power centers are and always have been jockeying with each other.
In a different context, Madison wrote "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" -- the idea was that if these powerful institutions were wrestling with each other, then that would create a space underneath them where the general public could, unnoticed by the struggling titans, have some freedom of action.
So the last thing I want is for the institutional media or the government to give SV a pass. Or vice versa.
> They aren't the picked upon underdogs no matter how many of us might still think of them that way.
Well, when you narrow the scope to "obvious tech" and brand names end users recognize. However, Silicon Valley is still small compared to the influence of, say, Wall Street.
I guess what I'm saying is that some other institutions may benefit from letting them occupy the public eye.
If you compare: Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google (Alphabet), and Microsoft on the one hand to JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs on the other, the tech companies have 2.6 times the market cap, 1.6 times the revenue, 1.1 times the net income available to common (a measure of profit) and .7 times the domestic work force.
I wouldn't say they are small compared to Wall Street.
