I think our "anti-trust" principles are due a major reform, booth theoretical and legal.

There is more to take into account than "trusts" or (in most cases) monopolies. We're not dealing with trains and resource transport anymore. Barriers to entry and societally harmful consequences of scale work totally differently.

Google & FB have absolute control of online advertising (in most markets), and significant control of online media. Their decisions vis-a-vis surveilance deterrmine the level of privacy most people have. If Youtube demonetizes certain content (for immodesty, politcal views, etc.), then these are the standards of the internet. If Google and FB agree that an article is important (via whatever employees, users, algorithims or combination make the "decision"), then it is. If they agree a position is propogandist or dangerous & should be silenced, then it is. Youtube's fair use implementation is what fair use is in normative practice.

That is just a lot of power. It's unchecked, and IMO scary.

This is not about good and evil. It's not a trial of Alphabet & FB. I'm not accusing them of wanting to censor media^. Not accusing them of being worse than others. Their size itself is a problem,

^Ad-surveilance though, that is probably worth $100bn pa to them, maybe more. Here their interests are pathological, imo. Completely at odds with their users' interests

Meanwhile, These companies (again particularly Google & FB) just take up a lot of "space," and are not always gret custodians of the territory they occupy.

Lets play what-if. What if Tinder dissappeared today. I see a decent chance that something will take its place by tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if it's something better. Tinder isn't hard to make. What's hard to do is draw the network, which is where the value of Tinder is. Full credit to Tinder for the concept and implementation but that does not guarantee that they are the best custodians of that space.

Giants have more moat than Tinder. FB have over half the population logging in daily and subscribed to IMs/notifications. .

Google controls my phone, my browser, my TV... It controls the network of advertisers, the eyeballs, the app store, the user profiling data.... Good luck competing with youtube.

Youtube is important. It is online video, which may be the most important media channel in the world.

The WWW (culturally and technically) gives users a platform to be their own media, have their own show, expand and free and democratize media. IMO, podcasting is an interesting space. It's very decentralized and free, running on bare metal protocols, more or less. They negotiate directly with advertisers and deliver directly to users. The stuff that succeeds seems to be much better quality. Spam doesn't exist. Clickbait is minimal.

Video though.. video goes through Google & FB. If FB decide that 30s videos are the s--t, that's what people see. If youtube decides that original content is less valuable than random mashups of content (bordering on spam, imo), then they are. If youtube's comment section sucks, then online discussions of videos suck. If Google decides that the platform/content revenue split is 50-50, then it is. If they think science is boring, it is.

(Personally, I think Youtube is mismanaged, and that is a big let down. You can probably tell.)

But if Youtube disappears tomorrow... We'd still have online video. New platforms would appear. Competition would (for a time) take place. The internet would be better off.

I've got no idea how these (half baked) ideas sould be implmented into regulation, to pre-empt the comment. Obviously, it's tricky.

But, I don't think this can be improved via the normal antitrust concepts. the problem isn't price fixing or "artificial" barriers to entry. The problem is a lack creative destruction and an accumulation of power.