These companies pose a general threat to the proper functioning of a healthy market due to network effects and compatibility issues, things that regulators should always be working to counteract.
I think EU has an easier case, because the way I understand it, in the EU anticompetitive behavior in itself is illegal, while in the US, as long as you can argue the consumer benefits (eg Amazon selling stuff at a loss), it’s no problem.
If Google, Apple or Meta feel like what you're saying is not in their interest for the public to hear it, you just... can't say it. Apple can remotely disable your iPhone. Google can remove you from search results. Meta can nuke your social media presence from orbit.
This is by no means an endorsement of the guy because he's a complete piece of shit, but the one thing Alex Jones got right during his temper tantrum when he got deplatformed is that getting deplatformed is not a thing that only happens to people you don't like; theoretically, and in fact quite regularly, large multinationals can simply decide that someone should cease to exist in the public sphere, and they can legally disappear people more effectively than the CIA. Today it's anti vax loonies and racist conspiracy theorists, tomorrow it's folks reporting on Apple's Foxconn factories in China or Meta's content moderation staff or Google's spying on people's private communications.
We live in a world where we've created the marketplace of ideas, which necessarily means that those who hold the marketplace have to give everyone a stall, almost regardless of how vile their ideas are. Not doing so is a great way for large corporations to silence their critics on a scale never before imagined. I'm not exaggerating when I say these three companies can erase you from existence. Losing your Google account, Apple ID, and Meta accounts all at once would be an excellent way to prevent a corporate dissident from accessing the info they need to keep these companies accountable. It's terrifying, and it's also a mundane kind of terrifying that requires what might seem like overly aggressive government regulation, but I really don't see another way forward.
And before someone comes in and says something to the effect of "well, isn't all of the above still true if you replace Google, Apple and Meta with $COUNTRY?" and of course the answer is yes, but at the very very least, countries are theoretically accountable to their citizens. Corporations are effectively accountable to no one, which is certainly worse.
"De-platformed" and "cancel culture" seem to be the names given when the it's done by a left-associated corporations or governments.
"Black-listed", "not renewed for another season", "banned from VISA/PayPal etc. payment providers due to ToS violations", and "violating public decency" seem to be the names for the same actions when taken by right-associated corporations or governments.
(${team}-associated because this is about perceptions rather than any actual political preference).
This also happens jointly, I think. E.g. Russell Brand after sexual assault allegations came out was demonetised on YouTube following a letter from the House of Commons media committee to YouTube. I can't be bothered to find an exact article, but Rumble got the same letter, but didn't comply, in this BBC article[0].
(Which, frankly, includes not using said platforms for their own communications. Not sure why Twitter is treated like a generic newswire and announcement system by schools, community groups, governments, etc ... after everything that's happened.)
That's the vision we had of the Internet in the 90s: decentralized, publish your own content and link-out to other's. Not sure why we let that get derailed into the closed boxes we have today.
Asshats like Alex Jones or Russel Brand wouldn't even be a concern and we wouldn't be talking about "deplatforming" as a thing really if the "platform" hadn't grown so unreasonably big and powerful in the first place. The Age Of Narcissism is entirely our own fault.
If you build a huge giant megaphone and leave it lying in the middle of the playground, inevitably some jerk is going to "misuse" it.
In India, there is UPI which at it's core is dominated by 2-3 apps. Regulator is trying to reduce market share but to no avail. The thing is, service is free for end user, so the only way a service provider app (links user with banks on whose rails the tech works) earns money is via advertising. Others dont take it up because returns are only possible once you burn money to attain a certain scale. No one in the chain earns anything on a single transaction except banks(paid for by other banks). Think while regulator should be watching the apps (and banks) closely, they should instead also work on an incentive structure which could open the market further for newer entrants.
You might make a world beating product and achieve 100% market share. That's great!
If you then use that market share, or your product, to resist competition, or if that happens naturally, so that by doing nothing you are guaranteed 100% market share, then regulators have to step in to ensure a healthy market going forward.
I dont think anybody expects them to reduce their market share. Thats what competition is for.
It's like having a gun. Perfectly fine unless you go around threatening people with it.
I don’t think EU not the US is ready to implement rules against smaller companies being bought, I mean Microsoft could by Activision Blizzard.
In the end, markets will optimize to have 2 or 3 big players in each fields to avoid that kind of problem...
We could have so much more competition if Apple was divided into software, hardware and services companies.
And these companies (except perhaps the services company) would be more pro-consumer, making stuff that we actually want instead of stuff that Apple wants us to have (and vendor-locks us in).
It is also a bit ridiculous that some of the best CPUs out there are available only for consumer products.
iPhone and Macs own a small fraction of their markets around the world. Clearly there are alternatives and you don’t need to choose an iPhone or a Mac.
The fact that they have a small market share is not relevant when they have many millions of users.
This kind of thing leads to oligopolies that disadvantage consumers, which is what we have with phone app stores on Android and iPhone.
Ok, so then why do you support the EU denying me that choice?
If it's about choice, then Apple performs very poorly at it. Apple is great if your requirements are average. A large minority of people still have to look elsewhere.
if you are from outside EU then you are fine for now, you will not have this freedoms.
If you are from EU then keep calm, nobody will force you to use a better application or service then the default ones from Apple. Side loading was available on Android and facebook Messenger and whatsapp are still on the official store despite all the FUD from Apple extremist fanboys, you can continue sitting inside the Apple walls.
Apple tried to allow competition in their ecosystem. And all that happened is that vendors like Power Computing went straight for Apple's most profitable markets and nearly bankrupted the company.
The only reason Apple is successful is because people like the console-esque experience of having one vendor do everything.
For instance Apple couldn't sell its ARM processors even if it wanted to because ARM's licence agreement with Apple forbids it. The problem is that the market for CPUs lacks choice. Hopefully RISC-V will alleviate that, eventually.
First time i hear that. Isn't Apple a founding member and can do whatever it wants?
They bought an architectural licence, but those always come with limitations, or you just don't get one. See Qualcomm's litigation against ARM.
It's making me sad that this world is full of so many people and massive states/corps and only the EU tries to navigate the new challenges of integrating technology in our lives responsibly. It feels like the world is full with idiots, cry babies, and evil geniuses and just the EU which is such a small fraction of the world acting like a grown up.
I mean, many people would agree that the US is the face of the western world. How come such a massive group of people act so irresponsibly making the same mistakes over and over again, causing a significant amount of suffering, and then saying the east is evil. The EU is the only body that advocates socialism and democracy while the US doesn't live to its standard, which is a shame really. In these challenging times the west needs strong leaders, not the horrifying shit show there is now.
Both a large liberal democracies (for now) but they live on opposite sides on the (center) left/right spectrum.
There is a real benefit to humanity with competing ideas being put into practice at scale.