The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result is a platform that can do all kinds of harm.
The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is.
If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.
>>If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.
yeah, twitter could implement plug-in choose-your-own fact checking, but that would create a scary market outside twitter's control. Since the number of twitter users is roughly finite this could mean a reduction in attention share to twitter proper...
The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is.
If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.