No. It's not misleading at all. And your example illustrates the important distinction the OP made. These companies that you mentioned almost have to cooperate with the government because the government has the ultimate power to fine or even jail them, not to mention harass them or put them out of business, if they refuse to cooperate. They can't just walk away from this issue. This is why government power and the use of the gun has to be strictly controlled by the constitution. This is what the FEDs, et. al. are trying to circumvent. Our basic liberties such as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. are empty words if the government attains the power to spy on all citizens en masse without out cause or warrant.
According to the article our behavior and therefore Freedom of Speech is being manipulated by these companies that in turn brings us full circle to the point that surveillance companies control our behavior and therefore our voting decisions and thus weapons.
If, however, companies can effectively influence who becomes the government, and if they also have close ties to those people then the distinction becomes a lot less useful.
No. It's not misleading at all. And your example illustrates the important distinction the OP made. These companies that you mentioned almost have to cooperate with the government because the government has the ultimate power to fine or even jail them, not to mention harass them or put them out of business, if they refuse to cooperate. They can't just walk away from this issue. This is why government power and the use of the gun has to be strictly controlled by the constitution. This is what the FEDs, et. al. are trying to circumvent. Our basic liberties such as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. are empty words if the government attains the power to spy on all citizens en masse without out cause or warrant.