7 ms·
When a single entity controls a significant share of internet traffic, it opens the door to various issues. Cloudflare, for instance, has the capacity to unilat
by Freedom2 3y ago
When a single entity controls a significant share of internet traffic, it opens the door to various issues. Cloudflare, for instance, has the capacity to unilaterally determine who can or cannot access the internet, effectively setting the rules. While these powers often originate from well-intentioned goals, such as blocking malicious actors, they can eventually be applied in more arbitrary ways. Arguments for privacy often fall flat in this context, as robust privacy measures could inadvertently protect malicious users. The average internet user generally lacks the understanding to grasp these complexities. Even unintentional errors, like merging a flawed code update, can result in widespread internet outages, as has happened with Cloudflare in the past.
This concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, like Cloudflare, Google, and Meta, is precisely why anti-trust laws were established. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of political will to enforce these laws effectively. As a result, the future landscape of the internet is likely to differ radically from what we are familiar with, and not for the better.
- madeofpalk 3y ago"Anti-trust" is not "anti-monopoly". Monopolys aren't illegal. Maintaining a monopoly by preventing others from competing is the thing that tends to be illegal.
- pissgocker 3y ago[flagged]
- neodymiumphish 3y agoYeah, this has nothing to do with antitrust. Just because a company is offering services enough that a plurality of users accept, doesn't warrant government interception or action.
- lwhi 3y agoIf a company has complete control of a market, the market will require regulation to ensure it's possible for new entrants to stand a chance. You are incorrect.
- neodymiumphish 3y ago"Control" has to be properly contextualized. Just because one company is the only available option for a service or product doesn't mean that business "controls" the industry. Natural monopolies occur and get displaced by innovation all the time without any regulatory involvement.
- lwhi 3y agoYou're splitting hairs to justify a political stance. Capitalism is dangerously flawed without carefully considered regulation.
- neodymiumphish 3y agoYou're making an unsubstantiated claim that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You're also making assumptions about the motive behind my statements of fact to convince yourself or others that I'm wrong without disputing the relevant details of my comment. There are vanishingly few instances of a natural monopoly occurring out of thin air and remaining a monopoly. In fact, there's a strong argument that regulatory capture is the cause of the more egregious examples of long-standing monopolies, which would not have continued to exist were it not for the burdens of entry creating through coordination with the monopolistic entities. In our current political environment, it's hard to argue anything we face is actual capitalism as opposed to cronyism.
- lwhi 3y agoNo. We live in a world that is driven by a remarkably small number of massive corporations. Huge corporations acquire smaller corporations. Huge corporation merge with other huge corporations. To say this type of behaviour is not at least serving the same negative function as a monopoly is utterly disingenuous. This type of capitalism is not working well.
- neodymiumphish 3y ago
- alexvitkov 3y agoI hate big tech as much as the next guy but what is Clownflare doing to prevent you from using competitors?