If I'm rude to the butcher, they should absolutely be able to deny service. The difference with the big platforms is that denying service has rather more compre

If I'm rude to the butcher, they should absolutely be able to deny service. The difference with the big platforms is that denying service has rather more comprehensive effects. This is a core problem that doesn't show up in this situation - these companies have accumulated so much power over individual's lives that their use of that power needs to be regulated due to the possibility of abuse. The EU DMA recognises this in terms of consumer protection, but the problem is much broader. For example - if Amazon just denied delivery service here, that would be fine. It's the fact that they provide delivery service but also automate the customers home, and also provide their TV service, and also provide servers for them at work that causes the problem. > People can be denied government benefits if they act abusively toward a case worker. They can also be denied medical treatment and ejected from a hospital if they are abusive to HCPs there. I don't agree that this should be possible. I know in the UK (because I just asked a doctor friend) that it is unheard of to refuse treatment. It's a theoretical possibility but in practice they get the police and use some combination of medical and physical restraint. For benefits, they should continue to get them and be otherwise punished by the legal system if appropriate.