Thread by @matthewstoller

1. Ok I guess it's time to address the push for 'interoperability.' The main problem we have with big tech is they are too powerful. Would mandating they interconnect their systems with competitors break this power? No. The CEO of Mapbox made it clear when he testified.

https://twitter.com/CharlottesWWWeb/status/1370432624863350784

2. Mapbox is interoperable with Google Maps. But that didn't stop Google from threatening Mapbox's customers and bundling its products to destroy competition. These platforms are simply not governable in their current size and scope.

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1364963768854265858

3. Businesspeople are terrified of these firms. I hear from them all the time. Facebook killed Wired's traffic after Wired did a negative story on Zuck. Claimed it was a glitch. Does anyone actually expect Mark Zuckerberg to stop trying to dominate?

https://twitter.com/CharlottesWWWeb/status/1370432627677757450

4. You'd need a regulator with the strength of Hercules, the desire to inflict pain of the Marquis de Sade, and the funding of the Pentagon to stop these firms from doing what they've done for 20 years, which is crush everyone in their path by twisting rules or breaking them.

5. Moreover, how would interoperability work? The bill that would mandate interoperability is the Access act. This bill says that the Federal Trade Commission would regulate big tech firms to make them interoperate. I'm sorry. The FTC?
warner.senate.gov/public/index.c…

6. The FTC's claim to fame on regulation are consent decrees with Facebook, Google, and TikTok that these firms *continue to break.* It's so bad that a profitable investment thesis is likely a portfolio of firms who have consent decrees with the FTC because they are monopolizing.

7. So let me pause here for a mirthless chuckle at the idea that a small flaccid government agency can impose regulations on the most powerful firms in the world, each of which has significant internal conflicts of interest.

8. And that's the main point. As @HalSinger noted, these firms are *simply not governable* in their current form. Several witnesses pointed out that obvious fact.

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1364963264585740289

9. For instance, Barry Lynn did not strongly endorse interoperability, he argued it is besides the point. We do not want a government powerful enough to understand firms of this size and complexity, he said. Such firms simply should not exist.

https://twitter.com/CharlottesWWWeb/status/1370053257410842631

9. Would interoperability be useful? Very much so, but only in a world where firms are far simpler and less powerful, and follow the law. But without that? They might work, but it's equally like these rules would reinforce the dominance of these firms.

10. In other words, the core question is whether to support the first recommendation of the subcommittee report. That is to *break up these firms* to simplify them, which is a predicate to any non-authoritarian regulation. So this is the question.

https://twitter.com/sarahmillerdc/status/1370439646249947140

11. Taking on the power of these firms is fundamentally about taking on power. There is no way around it. And frankly, the level of fear is pervasive, and it's just outrageous not to listen to businesspeople who speak up at great risk.

12. When the CEO of Mapbox says Google does a smash and grab and threatens his customers, some meek rules from the FTC on interoperability, when his system is already interoperable, won't matter. Just break up these firms already. End this reign of terror.