There are conspiracies which do not exist, but which act like they do.
These are de facto conspiracies: concerted actions by particular actors who haven’t actually planned anything together.
Take for example, the atomisation of society. Billionaires cultivate it on all their social media platforms through algorithms that enrage users and which blame other users for the rage. Here, atomisation is not the goal; it is merely profitable.
However, consider the kind of rage that leads to unionisation and environmental legislation. This kind is a problem for billionaires. This is not the kind of rage their platforms promote. Calls for unionisation do appear, but they are not promoted. Let’s be clear: unionisation does attract attention. It is not boring. The fact that unionisation has taken place historically, in the face of disadvantage and repression shows that people take an interest in the topic.
Class action suits, taxation, legal rights, environmental laws are all problematic. However, atomisation is not.
Billionaires provide many services, some of which promote atomisation and some which are orthogonal to atomisation. However, atomisation does not suffer defeats and setbacks the way environment legislation does. It progresses, albeit slowly and unevenly. Here is the issue: No one should care whether billionaires are planning together or not.
Is the lack of conspiracy enough to forgive the promotion of atomisation?
Imagine that a bottled water company treated the water to removed only only three particular pathogens. If customers get sick from a fourth pathogen, the company is held responsible. Passivity and neglect do not excuse the distributor where there is a public health risk.
This is why it is usually unnecessary to accuse billionaires of conspiracies. If they are engaged in conspiracies, it does not matter, because we can see what they are doing. If they are not engaged in conspiracies, it does not matter, for the same reason.
