We should break these companies apart - they should not have that level of power.

Centralization of power at all levels is bad. I therefore agree in spirit.

But who is the 'we' in that 'we'? If you defer to a politician, you simply centralize more power into a body of government constrained by only cultural norms and donor interests. Making a change requires the shifting of the overtone window of acceptability. At that point, it executes on it own regardless of mechanism.

The cultural norms are the prime mover.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If you defer to a politician, you simply centralize more power into a body of government constrained by only cultural norms and donor interests. You're taking it as a premise that someone should have this power, i.e. that the centralization should actually exist. Compare two alternatives. One, each person has (is required to have) a single account across all services. You use the same account for the DMV, YouTube, your bank and the IRS. Two, you have an independent account for each service. You have separate accounts with the IRS, Medicare, DMV, YouTube, etc. If one of them gets messed up or compromised it doesn't affect the others. If you have a dispute with any of them it limits the blast radius. The first one is a dystopia regardless of who controls the single account. It's subject to abuse of power whether it's a politician or Mark Zuckerberg. So the solution is to demand the second one.
	▲	icantevenhold 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We the people