why the fuck would Google or whoever want to directly govern people? it's a no-win scenario.
Well how might governing change in the near future, what with all the homebound bodies? I'm sure its easier to govern people whose primary existences are online - and I'm inclined to believe that is where we are heading. To be sure, some people/demographics more than others, but almost all of us will be stepping in that direction, no?
And if we do move toward and "algocracy", why wouldn't Google be among the spearheaders? In fact, they might be my top guess - but I'm really not privy to such things.
And yeah it would be almost pure conjecture, from where we are now. By integrating a brand into your identity, are you not swearing a consumer-oath of fealty? That is, you are inclined against supporting opposing brands.
I can't say I know almost anything of Peter Thiel, other than his foundation, and vague connections drawn between him and some transhumanist crowd.
I think I see your point about governance not being profitable, but might that governance
not be the governance of tomorrow? Would an increasingly data-based governance prove to be more profitable?
"Power" in the Foucauldian sense, from what I gather, is defined as the ability to preclude certain maneuvers of your opponent, to prestructure their field of potential moves in your favor. In this sense, it seems to be more oriented towards the future than the present. With the data available, is not power
as such more robust than ever? I'm sure there are other definitions and conceptions of power, though.