Hearing that Congress is going after the tech monopolies again.
And there is no question that these tech companies are, in fact, monopolies.
But much like the formation of any other monopolies it started small and snow balled.
When many of these companies formed the ingenious idea was using phones and computers to track economic movements.
Was the intent behind their actions to form these monopolies?
Possibly.
Does it much matter?
At this juncture, no, we are in the world that we are in and it is our duty to find solutions for the problems that have risen from these issues.
A tech monopoly was bound to happen as soon as they tech stopped being telephones and calculators and started being an entire ware houses worth of technology from a few decades ago and has been miniaturized into our pockets.
The problem was foreseen and some what addressed by the printing industry. However the speed at which the evolution happened I don't think anyone was prepared for.
Before taking a sledge hammer to the companies that are holding the tech sectors bustling economy together we should first work on making some very key, but very necessary designations.
Namely.
How to define
A Tech Service - (messaging voice, video, image, or text services, weather and emergency alerts,
A Tech Product - (a single function app like a game, widget, or piece of digital art)
A Tech Platform - (A social Media Site)
A Tech Market - (A digital store front for a physical product/location)
A Tech Security Service - (a third party aggregate ensuring safe transmission and storage of data)
A Tech Hard Service - (maintenance, installation and insurance services for hardware)
A Tech Storage Service - (Physical server and processor space for personal, commercial, educational, or civil databases and services)
Most of these things are already compartmentalized and defined, though updates with considerations of the current digital landscape and future proofing for probable technological evolutions is what we are faced with by looking at the current tech monopolies.
Arguably Amazon should remain a delivery and distribution service for small to midsize businesses.
However, by removing Amazon offerings from the marketplace we are looking at the same issues currently caused by retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy - Having mass market offerings at such low prices it makes it difficult for smaller producers to compete.
So Amazon would need to make the choice between being a digital retailer or a digital P.O.S. system for other businesses.
Google is a touch more difficult because they own a lot of what has become the "public streets" of the digital world.
Mapping services (which I feel should be a public service for emergency management anyways)
Google, I feel, would step naturally into the role of a "Tech Security Service" Ensuring safe and secure transmission of data such as search results and economic traffic.
...Youtube, already? is a separate company and would be classified as a "Tech Platform" tasked with content curation and stepping into the role of a Digital Public Broadcaster - the new UHF so to speak.
Facebook - is a bit stickier, but arguably should remain largely unchanged, though paying it's users (whos information was/is packaged as a product being sold) should be, for verifiable accounts, should be compensated for those sales.
The distribution of those funds is one for debate, but still one that should be addressed.
Especially when it is a platform that has affected major geo-political shifts in recent years.
...anyways, just my thoughts on the matter for now, with regards to finding a fair and judicious way of breaking up monopolies without destroying the infrastructure that has grown up around them.
