Very few governments in the world have an absolute monopoly on violence. Most countries allow some private ownership of weapons, have self defense laws and/or have private security companies. Many countries also allow private mercenary forces that can operate outside their borders.

People like to assume that governments and corporations are inherently incompatible, but that’s just not true. A government is just whichever organization(s) has the most power within a geographical region and a company can very easily become the de facto government in an area if its power is unchecked.

For the most prominent historical example of this look at the East India Government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

From a contemporary perspective there are plenty of examples of large multinationals effectively controlling and directing smaller, less wealthy governments. Even in big countries with strong governments, the influence of large corporations on what laws get passed and how they are enforced can become significant.

The cool thing about BigTech these days is even if you don't use them, they still know about you, or you use them indirectly via other products and cloud services. They have their fingers in every proverbial pie.

What does Apple or Amazon know about non users?

My ad blocker blocks analytics on mobile and desktop that takes care of Google and Facebook.

Whose left?

Of course there isn't anything more dangerous than the government. That is the whole point of a monopoly on force and detention. If done properly it is used to keep people from harming others.

Also, the cell phone in your pocket broadcasts your location a few times a second, and the corporations with that data love working with the government.

So tell me how BigTech has personally hurt you?

Did they come in your home and force you to use their products?

Yes, they do. It is difficult to live in society today without interacting with their products.

Really? Which products are you forced to use?

Well, you aren't forced to live in a house or use a toilet or buy your food. If your conditions are 'forced' then I guess the bar is pretty damn low, but everyone I know wants to operate in modern society and to do that one requires the use of services run by large quasi-monopolistic corporations.

So which part of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can’t be met without depending on “monopolistic” tech companies?

Do you think anyone is convinced by your simplistic rhetorical device?

Let's some questions which don't lead immediately to your 'thought-terminating cliche':

What does having a monolith contribute to society both in terms of value and innovation?

Are there examples where this ended up being beneficial?

Is it a good idea to allow the logical conclusion of free market capitalism be one monopolistic entity which has stifled or bought all competition? What do you think there is to gain by doing such a thing?

> Let's some questions which don't lead immediately to your 'thought-terminating cliche':

So you can’t come up with an example…

> What does having a monolith contribute to society both in terms of value and innovation?

Which BigTech company is a “monolith” without competition?

You insist people answer your stupid question but won't answer others. How quaint.

A computer or smartphone so I can access the internet?

You can run Linux on your computer and buy a phone that runs open source software. Firefox is still a thing

For better or worse, modern society has oriented around smartphone apps in day to day life so you have an Apple/Google duopoly.

I frequently pass through a parking lot for a local homeless shelter.

Every single homeless person that I see out there, has a smartphone.

They don’t have a place to sleep, but they have a phone.

And yet geeks on HN are always talking about the open source alternatives…

Have you ever sat down and thought about why you think the way you do, and how it impacts your life? Do you ever consider that you are wrong?