A Flourishing Internet Depends on Competition
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.
In content moderation, for example, it’s basically rote for experts to say that content moderation is impossible at scale . Facebook reports over three billion active users and is available in over 100 languages . However, Facebook is an American company that primarily does its business in English. Communication, in every culture, is heavily dependent on context. Even if it was hiring experts in every language it is in, which it manifestly is not , the company itself runs on American values. Being able to choose a social media service rooted in your own culture and language is important. It’s not that people have to choose that service, but it’s important that they have the option.
