Break Up Big Tech: Civil Society Declaration

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and Feasibility of “Breaking Up” Big Tech

  • Many argue the EU has real leverage: it can fine, regulate, or bar market access until structural changes happen, pointing to the USB‑C mandate as precedent.
  • Skeptics counter that forcing an actual breakup (spinning off units that no longer benefit the parent) is qualitatively different from product rules and could push firms to leave the EU instead.
  • Others suggest more radical sovereignty moves: banning or excluding US platforms from government use, or China‑style bans to force local alternatives—though many see that as politically and technically risky.

Europe’s Tech Weakness: Culture, Capital, or Capture?

  • One camp blames “hostility to business/tech,” risk aversion, fragmented markets, and weaker capital markets for Europe’s lack of US‑scale giants.
  • Others reject cultural stereotypes, pointing to numerous European tech firms and arguing that:
    • US outcompetes mainly via capital markets and dollar hegemony.
    • European startups are systematically acquired by US giants, draining potential champions.
  • Some say Europe may not want its own Big Tech; the goal is fewer mega‑corporations globally, not “our monopoly vs yours.”

Monopoly Power, Network Effects, and Standards

  • Broad agreement that oligopolies, lock‑in, and network effects (social graphs, app stores, ad networks, cloud platforms) make entry difficult and entrench power.
  • Strong current of support for:
    • Open standards, data portability, and mandated interoperability (especially for messaging and social media).
    • Decentralized protocols (email, web, ActivityPub, Matrix) as structural checks on monopoly, though others argue even decentralized ecosystems trend toward de facto centralization.
  • Several participants note prior antitrust (e.g., against Microsoft) did have teeth and enabled interoperability; they call for earlier, more proactive intervention in emerging areas like AI chips.

User Choice vs Regulation

  • Some advocate personal boycotts, de‑Googling, FOSS and Linux; others argue individual action is nearly meaningless without regulation due to network effects and prisoner’s‑dilemma dynamics.
  • There is support for combining both: personal divestment from Big Tech plus robust regulation to “save capitalism” from winner‑take‑all dynamics.

Harms Attributed to Big Tech

  • Concerns cited include:
    • Democratic erosion via algorithmic feeds, recommender systems, targeted propaganda, and control over public discourse.
    • Dependence on closed ecosystems (Google for search/ads, Apple for mobile apps).
    • Structural damage to journalism via ad monopolies and “adtech tax.”
  • Some caution that breaking up firms alone won’t fix the “internet as propaganda machine” without addressing the advertising‑driven business model itself.