"Big Tech" knows where we live, owns "our" data. "They" don't need attack drones, maybe?
The real point to be made, imo, is that busting up the Big Bell into the Baby Bells, and so on, did not really address the issue: regionality does not provide for "competitive markets", multiplicity of players in the field is what makes for "choice" and "competition", and keeps folks honest, we have to hope.
Therefore, anti-trust could be about enhancing entrances and exits (startups, refinancings/redirections, retirements), or changes in management, i.e., effective "regulation" could be more like "market development" or influence, rather than "being a lid on the jar", "turd in the punch bowl", mostly a tariffing and acquisitions/merger blocker or allower.
If Big Tech and Big Govt want to smooth the path into the future together, without taking individual political freedoms away from folks, that is definitely possible, given the motivation and will to make that happen. Without the motivation and will, it's not going to happen, no matter how possible it is.
There's a lot of societal level contributions that "Big Tech" has not figured out how to build and maintain, such as the appropriate freedom of speech while also providing privacy and safety online. There's simply a lot to be "regulated" or defined as a requirement of "Big Tech" by society. The Amish and their careful approach to technology bears review and some amount of emulation, as I see it. ymmv. Thanks for reading.
The best part of an emergent global economy is that any single government can only over-reach so much before the country's GDP plummets in the global ranking, leading to revolution or collapse.
