[inapis]

While definitely not a monopoly under the contemporary definition, I do not find it hard to believe that these companies are having an outsized influence on markets, society and politics. They end up having monopolistic effects without actually being a monopoly.

Case in point, it’s extremely hard to get discovered on internet without paying google/Facebook. Even if you are not running ads, google can wipe out a significant chunk of your internet traffic with their algorithm changes. Or google’s insane policy for Android OEM manufactures (which EU took a notice of). Amazon controls your retail presence - you can’t have cheaper products anywhere else. If you have a particularly popular product, Amazon will make its own version.

The average consumer still has an abundance of choice and low prices so the current market powers of these companies do not fit the definition of monopoly that was applied to Microsoft in the 90s. I think there needs to be another word or the definition of a monopoly needs to be updated. These companies still have an influence which teeters close the impact created by historical monopolies.

[lallysingh]

There's no law against that, and we (USA) try to be a country of law.

[ionised]

That's why you add new laws to prohibit things you find damaging to society.

[inapis]

I am not saying nor implying that what the Big 4-5 are doing is illegal. I'm merely noting that these companies have an outsized influence and the ability to force the markets to behave in specific ways, not all of which are beneficial to society.

There doesn't have to be a law, for an individual or organisation, to notice and opine that these companies DO have an impact which would be very hard to achieve in free and fair markets. Law usually follows disruptive innovation and capitalism and capitalists generally try to run circles around policy making.