A former senior advisor at the Federal Trade Commission argues that a guiding idea about the web has done more harm than good. The belief that online markets sort themselves out, he says, has let a small group of companies gain sweeping control over speech, data, and digital ads. His warning lands as courts, agencies, and designers debate how to fix a system that shapes daily life for billions.
The critique speaks to a long-running policy streak in Washington and Silicon Valley. For years, light-touch enforcement and faith in rapid innovation set the rules of the road. That posture helped tech grow fast. It also set the stage for closed ecosystems, behavioral tracking, and attention-driven design.
The idea that shaped the web
“A libertarian myth of the internet has given Big Tech too much power.”
That view distills a grievance heard across politics. The myth holds that users can “vote with their feet,” switching apps when they dislike terms or features. But switching costs are high once friends, files, and photos are locked into a platform. Network effects then keep users in place, and data advantages let big services outpace rivals.
Antitrust policy also shifted in past decades. Enforcers often focused on short-term price effects while many online services looked “free.” Harms tied to privacy, quality, or innovation were harder to prove. That gap gave dominant firms room to buy rising rivals, set rules for developers, and favor their own products.
Design choices that trained us to scroll
Product design magnified the trend. Online systems optimized for engagement can pull users into longer sessions and more frequent check-ins. The very features that feel smooth are built to keep attention on the feed.
Even insiders have started to push back. One creator behind an endless scrolling feature has said he wants to “kill his creation,” warning that design can shape behavior in unhealthy ways. That stance has fed a wider call for accountability in how apps set defaults, nudge choices, and measure success.
What this means for markets and speech
Control over key channels gives a handful of firms outsize sway over who gets heard and who gets paid. News outlets and small businesses often depend on platform rules they did not write and cannot negotiate. Developers face fees, ranking shifts, or sudden policy changes that can make or break a product.
There is also a public square problem. Content standards are uneven across services. When a few companies run the main gateways, moderation choices ripple through culture and politics. Critics say that kind of power should not rest on private terms alone.
Policy ideas on the table
Debate has moved from theory to options. Lawmakers and agencies are weighing steps that target gatekeeping, data, and design. Proposals range from narrow fixes to broader duties of care.
- Open up critical interfaces so rivals can plug in and compete.
- Limit uses of sensitive data and reduce default tracking.
- Scrutinize mergers that remove future competition.
- Require clear disclosures for algorithmic ranking and ads.
- Assess addictive or manipulative design against safety standards.
Some support stricter age protections and time-use tools. Others back rules that curb self-preferencing by platforms that both run a marketplace and sell in it. Courts are also testing cases that could reset how enforcers define harm in digital markets.
Industry pushback and practical risks
Large platforms warn that heavy-handed rules could break useful services or slow security updates. They argue that users benefit from integration and that many features lower costs and raise quality. Small firms fear that compliance burdens might hit them harder than giants with large legal teams.
There are trade-offs. Interoperability can help competition but may create new security gaps if done poorly. Transparency can inform users but reveal tactics to spammers or fraudsters. Policymakers face a design challenge of their own: write rules that curb abuse without freezing progress.
What to watch next
Expect sharper scrutiny of deals that remove nascent rivals. Design practices that lock in attention are likely to draw more study, especially for teens. Developers and publishers will look for fairer terms from app stores and ad systems. Users may see new tools to control feeds, data sharing, and time spent online.
The core idea is shifting. Markets matter, but structure and design matter too. The question is not whether to intervene, but how to set simple, enforceable guardrails. As one advisor’s warning makes clear, rethinking the old myth may be the first step toward a fairer, safer web.