That's true, it isn't. But, you seem to have somewhat of a misunderstanding on the nature of power dynamics. The claim that we have created a just digital space as refuge for the weak presents several... problematic assumptions:

Those who believe they've created sanctuaries for the weak often fail to recognize that they remain the gatekeepers. This "just protocol" wasn't negotiated with the weak—it was designed by the strong, for the strong's conception of justice. The weak don't get to run to safety; they get to exist on terms set by others. It's the illusion of benevolence. At least, that seems to be the case with certain clients.

There's no clean division between "strong who protect" and "strong who prey." These categories blur constantly. Today's protector becomes tomorrow's enforcer of their own vision. The digital platforms initially praised as democratizing forces now engage in surveillance, algorithmic manipulation, and the extraction of user data as product. The strong who think they're building refuges are often only building more sophisticated cages.

Even if some strong individuals show restraint or benevolence, this doesn't change the fundamental power imbalance. The weak are still dependent on the strong's continued goodwill, which can be revoked at any point in time. A just protocol enforced by the strong is still their protocol, subject to their interpretation and modification. The weak have security only insofar as the strong permit it.

History's "surprising turns" usually involve one group of the strong displacing another—not the weak gaining genuine autonomy. Revolutions typically replace one elite with another. Your digital space, however well-intentioned, likely just redistributes power among different factions of the already-powerful.