there was a lot more innovation with the local dial-up DSL networks for sure! It was cheap, fast, high quality service, with a human you could contact LOCALLY.

Wow, an article about human rights lost credibility before I could even read the headline. They put up their mandatory (for their marketing) cookie banner, the "settings" page uses a dark pattern where the optional cookies are already off so clicking them would turn them on, and the only buttons are "Accept Recommended Cookies" or "X". Oh look, the article includes a section about our right to privacy, how compelling.

Amnesty has long since squandered any credibility they once had

> They also buy up competition and enforce rules on other companies that make it difficult for competitors to thrive.

The article is quite sparse with sources/specifics, so let me back up this claim :

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... (It was surprisingly difficult finding any reporting on what should be a major story.)

I feel as though they kind of ignore "tech companies" in China, Russia, India, Iran, etc., who probably do worse things regarding human rights. If nothing else they should state that at the outset given they speak of "the global majority" where the technology companies they mention have either none or limited penetration.

Lobbying, regulatory capture, network effects, bundling, dark patterns - these are the anti competitive pieces that suggest big tech should be both broken up and regulated more heavily