It seems the majority of technology's social influence appears to be heavily clustered toward the early phase of either abject redefinition of existing domains (eg. mass manufacturing) or the introduction of completely novel domains (eg. internet). Once popularity is achieved you tend to see a social norm forming around the new technology and old hierarchies and interests reasserted. We've seen this, for example, with industries such as advertising, media conglomerates and banking surviving the internet.
Given this broad pattern, perhaps a more appropriate pathway to explore if seeking globally significant structural evolution in the social contract might be retaking direct ownership of hardware and services. Some potentially aligned contemporary parallel macro-opportunities include the growing devolution of tertiary education (ie. potential for public uptake of a parallel pedagogical pathways leading to increased youth involvement), greatly reduced custom hardware fabrication costs, affordable non-cellular wireless hardware (wifi mesh/LoRa), existing open courseware, increasing global recognition of the urgency and severity of trans-national environmental challenges, and the dangling UBI social question.
But while the engaged learner clearly benefits from openness and information (at least until they encounter commerce), and a business might be said to enjoy access to a pool of better educated employees and reduced operating costs, ultimately corporate position in most markets depends upon the maintenance of an edge which is historically based on either trade secrets or government-mandated monopoly (patent law) neither of which are particularly applicable to software or business methods and thus the open source movement.
This would appear to be the unresolved dichotomous core of the issue.