What is, and why is, the centralized internet so dangerous?
In general, it refers to any one sector or domain in which a single entity has a disproportionate share of the market when we speak about internet centralization. Amazon has a massive chunk of the e-commerce market; Google is by a wide margin the leading search engine; Facebook is still the leading social network, amid all its woes; and no video streaming service competes with YouTube yet.
Why is that dangerous? None of these utilities, such as telephones, electricity, roads and transportation, are categorized and regulated as public services. This implies that, for the most part, these businesses have had to establish, interpret and execute their rules openly with little control of government interference. And a significant number of those services' users and clients are situated outside their control and are subject to entirely different laws.
In certain ways, however, these networks are just as important as public services and can determine the success or destruction of their users' business and lives.
A recent article in The Verge reveals the risks of putting all of the eggs of your organization in the Amazon basket. Merchants can trick Amazon to close their rivals' business accounts by gaming the algorithms that determine the platform's rules on the basis of rules violations with no space recourse. In certain cases, because Amazon was the only website on which they sold their goods, the victims of these schemes suddenly find themselves with no other channel to do business.
Amazon has no legal responsibility to provide you with a detailed explanation of why your account is being suspended. There's no legitimate way to complain about your Amazon account being suspended. You're expected to appeal to Amazon itself. The method is so lengthy and frustrating that it has created an entire line of business around it. There are people whose full-time task is to help restore Amazon accounts that have been suspended.
In other ways, consumers are influenced by decisions taken directly by the organization that operates the service they are doing business on. Facebook, for example, agreed last year to update its News Feed algorithm, the part of its software that decides which posts are prioritized and seen first in its 2 billion users' timelines. The legal framework for the decision did not exist. It was made based on interactions with shareholders and the vision of the company leadership of what would be best for the brand (and its bottom line) of Facebook in the midst of its privacy fallout.
Changes to YouTube's monetization policies unexpectedly ruined the companies of several individuals who relied on their YouTube channel's revenue in 2018.
Changes to search and recommendation algorithms are another risky feature of centralized services. YouTube, for example, is now continuously improving its suggestion and search algorithms, which can have a drastic effect on the amount of video views received. In one scenario, before taking her own life, a YouTuber who was distraught over changes to her audience assaulted YouTube's headquarters and wounded three people.
Changes to Google's search engine algorithms and Amazon's search and recommendation for goods can be just as successful.
Again, there are specific rules in none of these regions. A years-long antitrust battle between Google and Yelp is the other notable event. Yelp is not a small business, and yet it is fighting against the search engine to make its case. Smaller enterprises will have a much more difficult time confronting one of the giants.
Discussions and reflections have taken place in recent years and major tech companies such as Facebook and Google have been restricted, but these efforts are largely focused on privacy and the handling of user data. Very little is known on how much leverage big tech firms wield over smaller firms.
This means that defending your organization from the risks of the centralized internet is up to you.