That’s a reasonable conclusion and a kind of lesser of evils, but only if you take sufficient remedies off the table: I agree that if we fix “megacorps always g

That’s a reasonable conclusion and a kind of lesser of evils, but only if you take sufficient remedies off the table: I agree that if we fix “megacorps always get their way, we can kinda influence which ones but it’s a zero-sum thing”, the question becomes, what screws the public that collectively owned the commons the least? But stronger remedies are possible without many if any new laws: straightforward anti-trust action should have either created housebroken regulated monopolies (e.g. Bell) or broken these companies up years ago. Microsoft alone has fought off such action against a different extremely damning body of evidence and precedent at least once at “front page” levels of plausibility. The exact point at which a search engine, an OS, a hyper-scaler, a de-facto defense contractor, a hardware OEM, an AdTech platform, … becomes too much scope for anti-market activity is debatable, but it should be pretty uncontroversial that we’re overloading the donkey a bit here with most of the top 10 by cap. What about, you can’t be a search engine with a copy of the Internet and a secretive mega AI lab? That seems a pretty plausible place to start carving the turkey? Or, you can’t turn a tax-advantaged 501c-style structure into a de facto subsidiary of such? Or we create a new category of intellectual property addressing the realities of the modern world in which copyright is too diffuse to let any “derivative work” be anything other than public domain? The problem would be funding it of course. If only a bunch of hyper-resourced people and institutions felt it was important enough to build AI to create some sort of institution devoted to the public welfare to put the money up for the greater good…