The current era of exploitative digital platforms was made possible by a multi-decade failure to enforce antitrust laws. This policy shift allowed companies to buy rivals (e.g., Facebook buying Instagram) and engage in predatory pricing (e.g., Uber), creating the monopolies that can now extract value without competitive consequence.
Related Insights
Platforms grew dominant by acquiring competitors, a direct result of failed antitrust enforcement. Cory Doctorow argues debates over intermediary liability (e.g., Section 230) are a distraction from the core issue: a decades-long drawdown of anti-monopoly law.
Platform decay isn't inevitable; it occurred because four historical checks and balances were removed. These were: robust antitrust enforcement preventing monopolies, regulation imposing penalties for bad behavior, a powerful tech workforce that could refuse unethical tasks, and technical interoperability that gave users control via third-party tools.
As traditional economic-based antitrust enforcement weakens, a new gatekeeper for M&A has emerged: political cronyism. A deal's approval may now hinge less on market concentration analysis and more on a political leader’s personal sentiment towards the acquiring CEO, fundamentally changing the risk calculus for corporate strategists.
The Democratic party's focus on antitrust, according to Warren, is not anti-business but fundamentally pro-market. By preventing monopolies, it fosters a competitive environment where companies are forced to continually innovate to succeed, unlike giants who grow complacent and raise prices.
A company's monopoly power can be measured not just by its pricing power, but by the 'noneconomic costs' it imposes on society. Dominant platforms can ignore negative externalities, like their product's impact on teen mental health, because their market position insulates them from accountability and user churn.
Mark Zuckerberg's primary innovation strategy has been acquiring and cloning, as seen with Instagram and WhatsApp. In a heightened regulatory environment where large acquisitions are blocked, his core playbook is neutralized, forcing him into the less proven territory of zero-to-one product development—a significant strategic challenge for Meta.
Meta's victory over the FTC's antitrust challenge is not just a legal footnote; it signals the end of a highly restrictive regulatory era. This will likely trigger a massive wave of M&A, as large tech companies are now emboldened to acquire stagnant, late-stage private "unicorns" that have been stuck without an exit path.
Recent streaming price increases, which are vastly outpacing inflation, serve as the primary evidence that the market is already too consolidated. Further mergers would grant companies like Netflix unchecked pricing power, transferring wealth from consumers and labor directly to shareholders in an oligopolistic environment.
Market consolidation, exemplified by potential media mergers, stifles competition and raises consumer prices. This process effectively transfers wealth from younger, poorer consumers to older, wealthier shareholders, functioning as a regressive tax that exacerbates economic inequality.
The FTC's failure to prove Meta held a monopoly set a powerful legal precedent, signaling that regulators face a high burden of proof. This has effectively given a green light to large-scale acquisitions, kicking off a "golden age of M&A" as companies feel emboldened to pursue mega-deals without fear of being blocked.
