Is that theory working with mega corporations such as Amazon or Google? Bezos pays his employees slave wages and I’ve heard horror stories about working for Google as well. These ultra wealthy corporations also use their immense power to impose unpopular “social justice” ideology on their employees.

@Andyman I'm OK with large corps so long as they have actual competition. Obama's lie about "too big to fail" corrupted much of the free market system in many areas of business. NO. If you overextended yourself then bye bye.
As to low wages, ehhh, you are always free to work somewhere's else -- with the caveat noted above. I have absolutely no sympathy for the "living wage" trope -- many jobs are entry level. You are not intended to stay there. That is why the "minimum wage" crappola is just that, crappola. If there is competition, you will be paid the "market". If not, move on -- there is no future there.
As to Google, their horror is the SJW crappola. But, what can you expect of a company that is owned by the CCP?

@bobbo666 I agree with most of your comment, especially the part about the free market not working if there’s no competition, and that’s really where the rubber meets the road. The big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are, for all intents and purposes, monopolies. Their share of the market is so overwhelmingly large that the so called “competition” can’t really compete at all because the people who use those entities are already established there and aren’t likely to leave because everyone they know are there. There’s also the sinister merging of major corporations such as Taco Bell and kfc, or Hershey and Mars, etc. that are becoming single mega corporations. That goes for media as well. It seems like there are a lot of individual businesses competing but when you look closer you realize it’s all just one corporation. That’s where everything is heading now. I think choice is becoming more elusive with each passing day.

@Andyman As you might know, there are laws/regs that kick in when a company assumes a monopoly status. If I recall correctly, it is when in a specific area of business they have >90% of the landscape. Seems too large for my taste, ought to be 60%. Anyhoo, gov'mt hardly ever does something unless the company in question is a utility (like those watched by FCC) or some evil energy company. Then, the "progressive" types get their panties in a wad and complain. Until then, the company just drags it out until a new admin walks in, takes the bribe, and that is the end.

The PROBLEM with Google (aside their being owned by the CCP) etal is their 230 protection. With that they can say anything they want (i.e., act as a publisher ) and still claim they are simply a carrier. Total rubbish!
Eradicate the 230 protection and watch the free market (e.g., hundreds of lawsuits on censorship) kick in.