Democracy is when people get to decide how the nation will be run for the n next years without a gun pointed at their head, not when a party with "democrat" in its name gets the majority of the votes.

you mean like when they voluntarily unpersoned the sitting president of the US? or when they conducted mass purges of his supporters from their premises in the preceding four years, openly vowing not to let such an unthinkable thing - democracy - to happen again, loudly chanting the mantra of free speech not applying to private platforms?

Money is power. Money that controls the narrative, historically news papers, but now social media is even more powerful. Going against money is a losing play and now the Democrats get to sit and watch it all burn down around them because they made the wrong decisions.

Money will always win. Embrace it, its the only thing that matters in the modern world.

Yes, Democrats turned on tech. But this did not just randomly happen.

For at least a decade, the New York Times (which Krugman wrote for) had an editorial policy that all articles on tech had to be critical of tech. This created a blatantly and obviously biased narrative that was picked up by sources on the left. That created an environment where Democratic leaders were politically rewarded for beating up on tech.

Ironically, this happened in a period where tech itself was bending over backwards to try to appease those on the left. The Twitter Files revealed a regime where tech was working with Democratic operatives to censor views that are widespread among Republicans. Some of those views were clearly problematic. But the censorship itself was even more problematic.

While it does indeed seem likely that Trump's instability will be bad for big tech, it is not obvious that Trump will be worse than where Democrats were heading. It was truly a choice between two evils, and the evils that tech had been dealing with were pretty bad.