Well, fill in where I'm missing the essence. This is how I'm looking at it: Meta is advertising, demographic intelligence, social media. Google is advertising, cloud computing, social media. (Youtube is social media, more "broadcast" than print.) Cloud computing is tech, but the business is computer rentals. Microsoft is a conglomerate. Some of it is "tech": Windows, SQL Server. Office productivity is tech. Search, games. Cloud computing is computer rentals again. It's what they actually make money on, not the means by which they make it.

I don’t think we were talking about equal application of the law. We were talking about the unwise approach of creating new law for new situations when the old law would work just fine.

For example, when you ask Uber to quote a price for a trip, and they quote the price, and you click “ok,” that’s pretty similar to a paper contract, but it’s not exactly the same.

Should we make up a new set of laws for contracts that you form over your phone? Or should we do our best to apply the old law to the new situation?

The law takes the latter approach. Benefits include: we already have a ton of experience dealing with the old corner cases. To the extent the new corner cases have some similarity to the old ones, we can use the old precedents to establish a greater degree of certainty about future events and how the law will consider them.

Obviously the law will never be equally applied to everyone, but we would greatly simplify our legal lives if we avoid coming up with a new set of laws for every slightly different new technology.

Regulatory entrepreneurship in action. Dodging regulations that apply to competitors is what has allowed (Uber, Airbnb, crypto, AI, etc.) to prosper. (Also paypal when they evaded banking regulations, amazon when they evaded sales tax, ...)

Crypto and AI are now going the distance with massive lobbying to change the law in their favor.