> these big companies operate what amounts to mini-surveillance states and face little to no scrutiny about it Cynically, the reason for this is that their min

> these big companies operate what amounts to mini-surveillance states and face little to no scrutiny about it Cynically, the reason for this is that their mini-surveillance states are contributors to a larger, more literal surveillance state; their would-be regulator is benefitting from this part of their behavior. Some (Yahoo, Verizon, possibly Amazon) look to be actively complicit. But even 'resisters' like Apple are better for surveillance than a decline in online communication or a move to decentralized, E2EE approaches. And in the apocalyptic case, it's useful to encourage reliance on a primary communication channel that can be disabled on demand. The 'kill switch' power is another one that can be borrowed by the actual state. I agree that rethinking this power distribution is an important move, but it's worth at least retaining an awareness of the cynical narrative: that regulation efforts against tech giants won't touch the areas where these companies are government proxies.