The internet is a chance for the masses to extract from each other in an attempt to aspire to elite status.

The internet democratised aspiration without democratising arrival. Millions of people now have access to the tools, aesthetics, and self-presentation strategies once reserved for the culturally elite, yet the structural conditions that produce actual elite status (capital, networks, credentials, inherited taste) remain largely intact. So what you get is a kind of aspirational mimicry at scale, where everyone is performing a slightly elevated version of themselves for an audience that’s doing the same thing.

Because attention economies are genuinely extractive in that your scroll generates ad revenue, your content generates platform value and your data generates targeting power. The promise dangled in return is reach, which is framed as opportunity but functions more like a lottery ticket. Most people are net donors to the system.

Close-up view of an open poetry book with a pen resting on the pages

Upon taking a closer look however, you’ll find that what many people actually want isn’t elite status; it’s really security, recognition, and creative expression. And the internet genuinely delivers some of that, even when the economic rewards are zero-sum. Though one may argue that it’s more upward extraction toward platform owners and advertisers rather than peer-to-peer.

Essentially, the internet gave everyone a storefront but not a market. It created a form of meritocratic opportunity while leaving the substance of elite reproduction intact. It continues to prove ideologically useful to the people at the top, because it makes inequality look like a failure of individual hustle rather than a structural outcome.

Love this perspective?(Or think I’m completely missing the mark?) I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which of these points resonated with you most? Let me know in the comments.