Seems misguided. The real problem with the internet is that large corporations are allowed to have a presence on it. Google for example, should be completely banned from the internet.
A good question. Perhaps a rule like this: the top 10 tech companies should be put to a worldwide referendum on whether they should be allowed to exist. If "no" is the majority, they should be dismantled into smaller companies or turned into public utilities.
Not the op, but there are several that jump to mind:
- A Google-branded network separate from the internet
- Browsing the cache
- Since this hypothetical reality includes them being restricted from the internet, maybe they don’t need to link at all and they just give the information instead of the link to the page it’s on
Or a more modest attempt: how about keeping the assets but breaking up the large corporations? With Android on iPhone, Chrome blocking Google's tracking, Amazon.com hosted on Azure, MS 365 and Google docs competing on merits rather than sheltering under respective coorporate umbrellas....
We'd still have much of the same crap, but the ecosystem would be much more dynamic and interesting.
Breaking up how? Splitting MS into Office and Windows creates two (functional) monopolies. Split it into Windows, Excel, Word, Powerpoint creates 4 monopolies.
Imo the only split that makes sense is to split it down the middle: TWO companies which BOTH have the rights to Excel. Half the engineers in each.
That is an interesting approach: Excel "Community Edition" and Excel "Old Microsoft Edition", and have them compete. Also, perhaps: after 20 years, software must be open-sourced.
> Also, perhaps: after 20 years, software must be open-sourced.
Wow! Wouldn't that be great?! Like as in an international constitutional kind of ground rule saying any software must ultimately become source-available after X years and becomes public domain after Y years.
(Still plenty of wiggle room for monopolistic closed source, but at least it wouldn't be that way forever.)
I was saying two competing closed source companies. Markets work best when they emulate nature: speciation, selection, competition. Successful companies should be split with all IP shared by the two daughter corporations.
I'm old enough to remember when Google was good. I don't think this is a scenario you have thought through.
Now, the problem with social networks is that they all are going for maximum market share. Which is the same as going for toxic and divisive communities. The collapse of Usenet in the Eternal September was just the opening salvo. It has happened to Facebook, it happened to Twitter, it has already happened to Threads (that place is worse than twitter now by far!), and it happened to many other less known things in between.
Any IRC channel above a certain size becomes toxic or useless or both, any Discord. Any group of people in the same room all screaming.
The solution isn't to ban big corporations. The solution is to build smaller "cells" with limited "immigration".
Well, if large corporations are banned, then large social networks could not exist easily since no one would have the resources to run them. So, I still stand by destroying large tech corporations.
Yea, but Google really ushered in an era of making the internet MUCH more useful for decades. Then they destroyed it all, but for a while it was great.
