Ancient Romans had (a lot of) slaves. Ancient Romans only allowed a tiny number of men, specifically, to vote. Ancient Romans imposed a violently enforced extractive empire around the Mediterranean and beyond. A philosophy that arose from those conditions might give me pause to emulate in a modern setting — at least, as someone who believes imperialism to be evil, slavery in all forms to be unacceptable, sexism to be harmful to all, and actual one-person-one-vote democracy to be the most reliable way of allowing some measure of self-governance by the people.
While true, I don't think the underlying evil as such played a role in whether a philosophy arose from ancient Rome, but having a large enough layer of society that can afford spending time musing and thinking or be an audience for that thinking. The source of that wealth isn't a cause even though the wealth is a prerequisite to free up time and energy. The extraction made that possible of course, and it is not much different now. BigTech probably feels resonance because it's a global extractive industry too. I remember from my Latin at school how we would read texts by certain authors where they made some nuanced ethical point, while in the same text never bothering to question slavery. Or even in the same paragraph along the lines of "you need to treat slaves as human beings", except for the keeping them enslaved part ofcourse.
There's something here about cultural appropriation across eras. The Renaissance did, claiming the mantle of the Roman civiliisation as its predecessor, and thus we in the West tend to see that as our cultural lineage. Cherry picked of course, not wholesale, as we tend to with more immediate own history too (Dutch Golden Age and the role of slave trade and colonial extraction e.g. unacknowledged but being a safe haven for religious refugees from elsewhere in Europe such as the Sefardim or Hugenots clearly embraced)