One thing he says at around 43'00" is that the shift from feudalism to capitalism, i.e., ownership of the means of production, was based on two pillars: profits and markets. However, the author says techno-feudalism's "markets", e.g. Amazon, Alibaba, Uber, are not markets in the classic sense, but "platforms" where trading, buying and selling, takes place outside the marketplace. The techno-feudal lords collect rents. Uber does not own cars. "The landlord does not participate in production." AirBnB, Amazon are other cited examples. As such, profits are replaced by rents and markets are replaced by techno-fiefdoms. His book argues that this is not "capitalism" in the classic sense. It's something else. He admits some of his colleagues would simply call it "rentier capitalism", but he prefers to ditch the term "capitalism". He argues our ancestors could have called capitalism "industrial feudalism" or "capital feudalism". He wants to make the point that this is not capitalism anymore, even though it's based on the triumph of capital.

He says repeatedly that "when everything has to go through" Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., but he never uses the word "intermediary". Were feudal lords intermediaries. In the early days of the internet I recall there was talk of "disintermediation" that would be enabled through the growth of the network and yet today it feels as though the internet itself has become the source of excessive, toxic intermediation. Toxic for one because it comes with absurd levels of surveillance and data collection.

The author sounds like he would be a fun professor to have as a student.