[incrudible]

There are cartel and monopoly arguments to be made that are based on maintaining an efficient free market. This is generally a bipartisan issue, but the sides are taking turns on it.

Of course Stripe does not have a monopoly, but the broader discussion involves major players that can function as a cartel.

[danijelb]

I think that Apple and Google should definitely be broken up or somehow regulated because they act as gatekeepers and there are no viable alternatives. Especially Apple where there is no way to even sideload an application. And I say this as an Apple user. But there's no guarantee what would happen even if there were five mobile platforms. In such parallel universe all five would maybe take the same action. However I don't think that other platforms which took some drastic actions last week are gatekeepers and I don't see a point in regulating them (Stripe, Twitter, AWS)

Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.

[incrudible]

I agree except for the case of Twitter. There may be alternative services similar to Twitter but they are not functionally the same because the broader public does not use it. I consider Twitter as a medium like phone or email that happens to be run by one company.