> No. They aren't. They may make decisions that impact millions of people, but they aren't a government. They may 'govern' the technical details of their implementations... But they are not governments.
They have rules (jurisprudence). They make rules(congressional). And they mete out punishment for not following said rules (executive). They have a standing military to enforce (lawyers in the countries of presence).
Sure seems like a government to me. They certainly aren't ones I approve of.
> It is CRITICAL that no one makes the mistake that these businesses are anything more than the path of least innovation to solving problems.
The answer is, that some of these entities are past "businesses". When an organization resides within 20 countries, and their computing cloud and business infrastructure is everywhere, what exactly do you call that?
If anything, it seems like a meta-government. Or a virtualized government over local governments.
> The tech industry has a major hubris problem. They don't need people mistaking them for legitimate governments to make it even worse.
You are adding "legitimized". Nobody would say that Duterte's government is legitimate. Or the large handful of tin-pot dictators. The Googles, Amazons, Microsofts of the world are indeed governments. But they are amoral capitalist dictators.
> Every person needs to understand that no software product is really a big thing. The reason they SEEM big is the sheer data magnitudes involved. Most of which the layman has no real concept of.
It's because software is a multiplier of work that we've never seen the likes before. What better use can be had with software, than controlling the proletariat? We need look no further than the degradation of ownership (IP), rental versus purchase of hardware and virtual goods, and the "Gig-ifying" of low end workers.