> I think we need a better term than monopoly, I think you're right. It hides a lot. We do need a better understanding of the problems. But be careful what you

> I think we need a better term than monopoly, I think you're right. It hides a lot. We do need a better understanding of the problems. But be careful what you wish for. Google being a monopoly is not a cause, but a symptom. Do a little 5Y analysis. Even rolling it back one step; Q. Why is Google/Microsoft etc a monopoly? A. Because they bought up all the competitors. So, a deeper problem is the very ability to buy and sell companies. Is it "the market"? Yet it is possible to create articles of a company as non LLC/Ltd so that it it can never be bought or sold. People don't do this because they don't intend to "build a great product/company", they intend to cash-out and sell a great company. These subtle incentive structures really matter. Dig deeper and ask things like "why do people only build companies to sell?" There's more upsetting answers behind that one too. In the end, if you want to say BigTech is not to blame and could not do anything else but agglomerate into problematically large blocs then we have to concede the environment and incentives of modern business are harmful to the public/national good. The place to intervene is then at the level of those values.