The article is blatantly Marxist. I don't know how this rubbish ends up on HN all the time. Here are some points the author makes. Half of them are obtuse and difficult to decipher, making it hard to argue against:

- By choice, pro-competitive rules were not introduced because it was believed that they would slow down and possibly halt development. Rules were introduced regarding intellectual property and systems cracking, editorial responsibility, child protection, etc., but not in terms of user contendability and competition.

The rules that were implemented, or adapted from legacy law, have had a terrible effect on the industry. The DMCA is one of the worst laws, having an absolutely awful chilling effect on online creativeness. Even if you do think copyright is a valid construct, the DMCA's reversal of burden of proof is inexcusable. It has lead to restrictions on people modifying software running on systems they _own_, including farmers' tractors. Thank god the FCC wasn't able to censor the internet.

- control vertical online markets at a global level, also determining prices in offline markets and therefore in the rest of the economy;

Vertical integration only makes it that much harder for a large corporation to innovate. It makes it easier for an agile competitor to out-innovate and adapt to take a portion of the market.

- extract value from the intermediaries of the producers (from both the traditional categories of the nineteenth-century capital / labor conflict);

What does this mean? They extract value from the middle-men?

- govern market access through control of the platforms (based on contracts that impose their contractual strength and exploit the protection of intellectual property laws), the searchability and the order in which the offers are displayed and, in some cases, moderating comments;

Intellectual property isn't valid property, and should be severely reduced, if not completely removed.

- in some cases they collect an intermediation on a price, in others through auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque;

This guy needs to name names or give examples. This is meaningless. Seriously, "auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque"? Is that even English?

- benefit from network effects that reduce the cost of acquiring customers and lockin that limit contestability by any competitors;

Services have been being displaced for years. There are newer, better things replacing older things all of the time. WhatsApp and other messagers provided a useful service that cellular carriers couldn't provide with SMS.

- have a regulation that exempts them from the responsibility to control the proposed contents / offers;

This implies that they have a responsibility to advertise for competitors.

- can transfer margins from one country to another thanks to royalties on intellectual property and the absence of stable organizations in the countries where they have customers (doing a tax shopping choosing the place to pay less taxes and eroding the tax capacity of the states);

Corporate taxes shouldn't exist for this very reason. Income, property, and capital gains should be _plenty_.

- benefit from nearly-infinite scale economies, thanks to marginal costs and / or null variable costs;

Software is easier to scale, but scaling isn't infinite. At a certain point, scaling 2x is much harder than before. It's easier for small firms to scale than for large firms.

- control the performance of the activities of the value producers (capital and labor) thanks to technological tools;

"Control" apparently means whenever you provide a service.

- establish working conditions for occasional relationships with a degree of control superior to that normally existing in traditional work relationships;

What is this referring to?

- unilaterally impose non-negotiable supply conditions to professional lenders of goods and services brokered by them;

What is this referring to?

- benefit from outsourcing and flexibility of relationships with various types of their collaborators, exploiting the porosity of the company perimeters determined by the computerization of the activities;

Also called, benefiting from specialization and trade, like every other good and service that can be traded.

- intermediate offers between non-professional operators that reduce the rights and protections of consumers, especially the most disadvantaged;

Giving the disadvantaged more opportunities hurts them.

- influence the formation of public opinion thanks to algorithms that filter the information presented to users by wrapping them in “filter bubbles”;

It's what the people want.

- influence scientific thought by funding a myriad of researchers, opinion leaders and policy makers worldwide;

Because funding for scientific research is bad unless it's done by the state.

- keep access to the market of putative competitors through contractual restrictions imposed by exploiting the regulations on intellectual property (just think of the app stores);

Yes, IP is bad, no good. Kill it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

- thanks to the intrinsic properties of immateriality, escape from traditional rights / duties / privileges and immunities of private property, by superimposing their contractual conditions and terms;

Contracts are invalid unless they do things I like!

- benefit from access to facilitated finance thanks to privileged access to the risk capital market, which are often interconnected in an invisible web of synergistically managed interests,

Yes, so loosen _or get rid of_ capital investment rules. Oh, but I bet you'd say that's bad because consumers could be taken advantage of.