LUDMILA ANDRÉA

Google-opoly?

Although this is probably a huge waste of my energy, it really, really rubs me the wrong way that Google and Facebook are slowly but surely beginning to monopolize the internet. Not that I am, by any means, emotionally attached to internet applications (although I am to some), I think it is incredibly frustrating that these two corporations feel the need to snatch up all of these innovative applications. No one likes a monopoly. And the way I see it we are living in an age, not only of information and technology, but of subsequent monopolies of these domains. Since the beginning, the internet has effectively symbolized the notion of a free market in its purest form, and healthy competition is undeniably a critical part of this reality. However, the fact that the internet is starting to look like some twisted version of a monopoly game is really starting to rub me the wrong way. Essentially all of the major ‘sections’ of the internet are dominated and controlled by one, overpowering company. The two that first come to my mind are Google and, more recently, Facebook.

Today, Facebook bought Instagram, an incredibly popular photo-sharing device for mobile phones, which marks Facebook’s largest acquisition to date. Now, is it just me that has a problem with this? I have to say that it is becoming pretty difficult to deny the fact that we are in fact living in an age of information monopolies. What I wonder is: is it possible that we (North Americans, specifically) actually like and support these monopolies? We live in a very diverse society that is very much centred around the individual, how could it be possible that societies with such an individualistic, entrepreneurial spirit can allow themselves to be monopolized like this? Obviously, this is in the realm of the internet, but that does not mean that it is not controlling us, as the vast majority of the population uses the internet daily. I guess what I am getting at is that this does not seem like the most democratic way to go about things. Why has monopoly become the rule and rendered competition as a mere exception?

In the case of Instagram, Facebook has claimed that they are going to work together with the company to make improvements and bring it to more people. However, back in 2011 this did not seem very appealing to the owners of Instagram:

Facebook has been interested in Instagram for some time. In early 2011, Mr. Zuckerberg reached out to Instagram to discuss possibly purchasing the company, but Mr. Systrom chose to keep it independent and focus on expanding it, two Facebook engineers who asked not to be named said in August. At the time Instagram had less than 7 million users. (NY Times)

Today Instagram has close to 30 million users. Like I mentioned before, this particular example isn’t very personal for me. Recently, Google has acquired another online photo-editing program, Picnik and will be incorporating it into the Google+ interface. This is the same idea, once again. It isn’t necessarily that I feel strongly about Instagram’s independence, or Picnik’s independence for that matter, because it’s not that. It’s the principle behind it, and this, for me, is ultimately a matter of principle. One can argue that the internet may still be in a relatively benign phase of Internet monopolies’ rule. This may be true. But I think we all need to make closer evaluations of what exactly we are okay with. We need to stop viewing the internet as this distant, abstract, alternate universe. It is very much entrenched in our society and has become vital to our interactions and our means of accessing information. Facebook’s buying of Instagram just made me think, and thinking is something we all need to do more of. The idea of democracy and democratic rights apply to the internet just as much as ‘real life.’ Obviously, this kind of mentality is pretty evident in the recent scandals with SOPA and other anti-Internet censorship movements. But this should also apply to internet monopolies. Most of the repercussions are felt most strongly by internet entrepreneurs and private innovators. But ultimately we must realize that we as a society will begin to feel the consequences of these circumstances over the long run. The changes may be slow and subtle, but we are heading down a dangerous path. If this continues, we may soon find ourselves looking back at what once was a dynamic, innovative resource, teeming with opportunities, and see nothing more than a stagnant, syndicated black hole.