Isn't it? I'm not even sure that "monopoly" is the right frame. Google's "price" in their high market share areas (eg search) is free anyway. To me, the proble

Isn't it? I'm not even sure that "monopoly" is the right frame. Google's "price" in their high market share areas (eg search) is free anyway. To me, the problem is power, not necessarily market/pricing power or even exclusion power. The problem is that the "public square" is essentially a handful of private monopolies. What Google considers "inappropriate" is banned or disadvantaged on YouTube. What FB (or Twitter) considers distasteful can become absent from the public or political debate. It's no joke, at this point. Things "woke up" when it seemed that shady stuff happened during trump's election. But.. several revolutions had already started on social media, coups, counter-coups, civil wars. 10s of thousands of public officials around the world have been elected on FB. That is a lot of power in very few hands, under a veil of secrecy, often with bad incentives. It was cheap printed paphlets and union halls that made fascists-vs-communist street fights a thing in the 30s... mediums. These days, an algorithm notices that telling (proverbial) fascists about communists is good for engagement... And the algorithm optimizes. I'm not accusing them of doing this deliberately doing this, but the feed algorithms optimize this way for a reason.. incentive.