Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

Yet more pointless anti-tech drivel. I wish HN had a downvote option for articles (though I know some use the flagging feature for that). The cycle: news domain hosts newsless anti-tech article, people here and elsewhere say "yeah!", site gets clicks, narrative steered as intended, repeat tomorrow. We get it, many here and mass media are against big tech, can we just wait for news or at least unique perspectives before upvoting?

Yes. But we have to be careful here. Investors want every quarter of every company they invest in to be better than the previous quarter. They don't care about your 5 year goals or your 10 year goals. They want returns now. Companies do what they can to make that happen. If we say this is just a Tech problem, we're wrong. Tech is just where most of the money has flown because, dare I say, it's relatively easy money.

It's interesting google maps came out with a new pricing model as mapbox gained popularity. It became more expensive and made the market easier for mapbox. Usually google would offer a cheaper, more competitive product but this wasn't the case.

The industrial revolution began before the civil war; export-driven growth began taking off in the 1840s. More broadly, industrialization weakened an artisan middle class - wages fell during early industrialization. This power was always concentrated in the hands of a bourgeois owning class; the limited liability corporation was one of the key early innovations of American government in promoting this economic form.

The modern corporate form did not develop until later - a managerial class emerged starting around World War II (see: James Burnham) and is, I think, a big explanation for why the previous Gilded Age saw massive labor organizing that eventually drove American policy change, but this era has not - the ruling class bought their own organizers this time.

I don't buy this argument.

The internet providers are de facto pretty close to the common carrier status (except maybe in cases of huge scale, like Netflix or google, where explicit net neutrality might be desirable). There are no huge technical or financial barriers to entry if you want to build a platform for communication over the internet, nothing comparable to e.g. telecom networks (either in 1950s or now).

The cost of acquiring a millions-strong audience, operating at that scale, and becoming essential for large swaths of society can be pretty low, both in financing and manpower; if Instagram is not a good example for you, take more extreme examples of Wikipedia or SciHub.

Would you like newspapers (e.g. that very NYT) be governmentally regulated because they are "too important for society"? It's dangerously close to the late Soviet Union. How effective NYT would be e.g. in uncovering the Watergate case were they regulated "for the common good"?

There's a particular fallacy that makes people think that some centralized regulation would be more efficient and lead to better outcomes than self-regulation on a level playing field. The efficiency is there in very few cases, mostly those that seriously defy common sense (e.g. control over antibiotics), or set safety guidelines against mass illness (e.g. food safety control). In most other cases, a bureaucratic body has as skewed incentives as a for-profit corporation, but much fewer reasons to improve anything.