The issue isn’t whether wealthy people try to influence politics: many do. The distinction is what they’re promoting. Equating support for mainstream democratic parties with support for parties or movements accused of undermining democratic institutions erases an important difference. ‘Rich people spend money on politics’ is the similarity. The political goals and consequences are where the comparison breaks down.

That’s comparing apples and oranges: Musk supports the far right (even extremists) that’s fighting democracy, Soros supports democrats.

The irony is that people fled centralised platforms for more control, then discovered that radical openness can create a different kind of lock in. Just because data is portable doesn’t mean privacy is. Protocols optimised for developers don’t automatically produce products ordinary people actually want.

The richest man on Earth buying influence in other countries while calling it free speech was always going to end badly. If any other billionaire tried steering US elections from abroad, the outrage would be deafening. Funny how principles become optional when your favorite oligarch is involved.

Brexit is turning into one of those rare political decisions where the people who will live with the consequences the longest were mostly too young to vote on it. Whether rejoining happens or not, the generational divide on Europe’s future is becoming impossible to ignore.