Common misconception, it's actually "toe the line". I used to think it was tow too.

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune" is an old saying and not any less true today. If your livelihood and that of your family depends on someone, very, very few people will antagonize this someone.

I sympathize with the cynicism in your last paragraph, but I push a little optimism back on a couple points. 1: our capability for speech may be limited by the corporations who have grabbed control over our media platforms, but insofar as freedom of speech refers to our ability to speak freely without retaliation from the government, we do still have real free speech. It's a juvenile point, but given events in the last few years it's not a right I take for granted as I did previously. That being said, I did just watch a video of FBI agents interrogating a woman in front of her house for posting non-violent content on Facebook relating to Gaza that you can add to a pile of evidence that the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech, so... that's not good.

2: Regulatory authority has become almost laughably meek, granted, but you're commenting on a video of one of the most aggressive regulators to hold the position in as long as I'm aware. This is a powerful sign that regulatory capture is not inevitable if we care enough to vote for candidates who will appoint strong regulators -- even if it hurts our pride to do so (<<conscientious vote objectors).

Jon Stewart has more than enough money to just quit, which he did.

Celebrity is often its own reward. And Stewart wasn't getting much coverage when he didn't have a show, despite some very sincere and fervent lobbying efforts during his retirement period.

No real free speech, no real agency in our economy, captive regulators that like to masquerade as populist heros but rarely actually do any real damage to sociopathic corporations.

One of the more infuriating bits about liberal agitprop shows is how fucking devoid of agitprop they actually are. Yeah, guys like Stewart and Colbert and Oliver can go on rhetorical tirades about the Big Evil Business Thing. But when push comes to shove, what do they actually advocate? Noncompliance? Organized revolt? A general strike? Confrontations with abusive and cartelized law enforcement? Any kind of material self-defense or defense of one's friends and neighbors? Anything that might violate the latest round of right-wing prohibitions on health care or gender or speech?

Or do they just put on a "Rally to Restore Sanity" that tells people activism begins and ends with voting, in an election system that's increasingly threadbare?

Yeah, I don't even watch the other ones. Sorry other people. Just change it to the weekly show at this point

I want people to understand that when they vote for a president they're also voting for all the administrative appointments as well. The stakes of who is president is already high enough, but if you want people like Lena Khan in charge, that also comes from your presidential vote.

You mean "monopsony"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

and taught me the word monopsylony

mo·nop·so·ny
noun.
ECONOMICS.
a market situation in which there is only one buyer. Definitions from Oxford