I agree. I dislike calling them "monopolies". If we use inappropriate
language it's easier for opponents to undermine fair arguments.
But how do we deal with this much power ?
The bill "will facilitate innovation and consumer choice by ensuring
that big tech companies cannot give preference to their own products
and services over the rich diversity of competitive options
offered..."
Sure that's one way of seeing a small part of the problem. But it
misses so much.
A fair digital market is one thing. A viable technological society
that isn't a cloaked form of fascism is another. More than "consumer
choice", it's about the RIGHT to have choice - subtle difference but
bear with me please.
If I exercise my moral prerogative to say "I will not use any
Microsoft products because I believe they are a morally repugnant
company" I may currently lose a job. Not because Microsoft are a
"monopoly" but because my employer limits my choice. Or I may not get
medical treatment because my local healthcare provider only gives
access through a Microsoft portal. The problem subsists outside the
scope of Microsoft (or Google or whomever) qua monopoly.
Where I think the European Digital Markets Act gets thing a bit more
right is it's crafted within the European Interoperability Framework
(an older and maybe more ambitious project).
The object isn't to weaken concentrated dominance or self-preference,
but to guarantee the user has a choice including the choice NOT TO USE
a technology in the case there seems to be "only one choice". An
employer, health provider, payments processor or local government
would have to provide alternatives or opt-outs without
prejudice. That would allow genuine alternative service providers (not
necessarily commercial) a foot in the door. It's a different approach
that starts bottom-up instead of top-down.
But how do we deal with this much power ?
The bill "will facilitate innovation and consumer choice by ensuring that big tech companies cannot give preference to their own products and services over the rich diversity of competitive options offered..."
Sure that's one way of seeing a small part of the problem. But it misses so much.
A fair digital market is one thing. A viable technological society that isn't a cloaked form of fascism is another. More than "consumer choice", it's about the RIGHT to have choice - subtle difference but bear with me please.
If I exercise my moral prerogative to say "I will not use any Microsoft products because I believe they are a morally repugnant company" I may currently lose a job. Not because Microsoft are a "monopoly" but because my employer limits my choice. Or I may not get medical treatment because my local healthcare provider only gives access through a Microsoft portal. The problem subsists outside the scope of Microsoft (or Google or whomever) qua monopoly.
Where I think the European Digital Markets Act gets thing a bit more right is it's crafted within the European Interoperability Framework (an older and maybe more ambitious project).
The object isn't to weaken concentrated dominance or self-preference, but to guarantee the user has a choice including the choice NOT TO USE a technology in the case there seems to be "only one choice". An employer, health provider, payments processor or local government would have to provide alternatives or opt-outs without prejudice. That would allow genuine alternative service providers (not necessarily commercial) a foot in the door. It's a different approach that starts bottom-up instead of top-down.