Antitrust law has long recognized that monopolies stifle innovation and gouge consumers on price. When it comes to Big Tech, harm to innovation—in the form of “kill zones,” where major corporations buy up new entrants to a market before they can compete with them—has been easy to find. Consumer harms have been harder to quantify, since a lot of services the Big Tech companies offer are “free.” This is why we must move beyond price as the major determinator of consumer harm. And once that’s done, it’s easier to see even greater benefits competition brings to the greater internet ecosystem.

In the decades since the internet entered our lives, it has changed from a wholly new and untested environment to one where a few major players dominate everyone’s experience. Policymakers have been slow to adapt and have equated what’s good for the whole internet with what is good for those companies. Instead of a balanced ecosystem, we have a monoculture. We need to eliminate the build up of power around the giants and instead have fertile soil for new growth.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        We’re competing for people’s cash. If we do a good job at getting it, we get more of it. But how do you define “win”?

        Also, please answer my question. If there is no competition, then how do you have anything other than a monopoly?

        • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Easy: The “win” is when all money not absolutely required for existence is in the hands of the bourgeoisie

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            That sounds an awful lot like an authoritarian state seizing control of the economy (for example, the Soviet Union). That most certainly didn’t happen through free market forces.

            And I notice you still haven’t answered my question. Why is that? I think it would be pretty simple to answer, wouldn’t it? (Edit: got the wrong username)

            • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              “Unregulated capitalism” sounds like the Soviet Union to you?

              I didn’t answer your question because I don’t give a fuck about you, and also I wasn’t the person you responded to. Your lack attention to detail explains why you’re so confused

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                My point is that the described scenario - “all money not absolutely required for existence is in the hands of the bourgeoisie” - hasn’t happened under free market systems as often as it has in communist/“state capitalist” countries like the Soviet Union.

                I’m sorry I got you mixed up with the other person. But I find it interesting they haven’t answered that question yet.