Google, Facebook, and Amazon have fundamentally transformed the web
A lot of the comments here seem to be quibbling. The analysis&#x2F;argument isn&#x27;t exactly how you&#x2F;I would have phrased it.<p>But beyond the details, I think it&#x27;s hard to argue with the main point. The web is much more of a large corporation&#x27;s playground today, far more. That means new things will be built in a different, more giant friendly way. The part of that that worries me most is the cultural part, more than the economic side.<p>My favourite example is wikipedia. If we didn&#x27;t already  have wikipedia, I don&#x27;t think we&#x27;d be likely to get one on today&#x27;s web. The culture is just far too corporate for wikipedia to be the end result.<p>Youtube&#x27;s another sort of example. Democratic media! A new culture factory!...<p>Youtubes play by the rules these days. Copyright.. business friendly policy, erring on the side of restriction. It&#x27;s just more manageable. Nudity? Why annoy politicians <i>and</i> advertisers? Just give us the purple <i>hills</i> version. Violence? Do what TV does. Revolution? Maybe, yes. Sure. Up the arab spring! Wait.. no. actually, wait. Hold on, not in america. Look.., no just means not here. Political ads, eh...? How about you leave us out of this.<p>They are no longer interested in the unfolding and unpredictable consequences of their inventions. Facebook is the world&#x27;s news stand &amp; coffee house. Youtube&#x27;s regional political radio, newsletters &amp; party magazine. They do not want this job, so they&#x27;re pretending it isn&#x27;t they&#x27;re job. Pretending they won&#x27;t have to draw lines between truth and lies, free speech and hate speech, laws and despotism.<p>The fear driven incumbent mentality.<p>It&#x27;s a pity we didn&#x27;t get more wikipedia&#x27;s back when the gettin was good. I would have preferred to see a giant wikipedia end up with the fake news problem (which I think these two giants almost created themselves).