For ASML and Carl Zeiss (which I didn't know about), it seems like a stretch from what I can read about them.

But for Spotify, why not?

> It’s a very thin and a political line between being a gatekeeper and a very successful company.

Of course.

If you are a tech company that becomes as successful as to be a monopoly or a participant in an oligopoly with a strong network effect, why wouldn't you be recognized as a gatekeeper?

> But for Spotify, why not?

Spotify is subject to the DSA already which sits parallel to the DMA and focuses on content moderation, transparency in advertising etc.

The argument for making them subject to the DMA is flakey because there has to be actual gatekeeping, you can export your playlists and data and import them to competing services with identical catalogues.

> If you are a tech company that becomes as successful as to be a monopoly or a participant in an oligopoly with a strong network effect, why wouldn't you be recognized as a gatekeeper?

Exactly. There are numerous monopolies that are scumming resources and wealth out of masses and not being tackled either because they’re owned by the right people or they’re strategically important. Then the discussion about how monopolies are bad and that’s why we’re addressing them becomes a mute argument. It’s supposed to be a government of the people, but sometimes it’s using it as an excuse to serve the interests of the few in right places, and not the successful companies.