Stopped reading after the first 3 paragraphs which were made up entirely of bitching about the arrogance of selected silicon valley billionaires, none of whom have anything to do with any companies that could ever be called a monopoly. I suspected that this was the author's real motive, as is usually the case with journalists coming after big tech. If they really cared about monopolies, then they would have been writing about the destructive monopolies / oligopolies in many other industries that have existed much longer than the 10 years or so that Google and FB have been large powerful companies. It's a shame because Google's monopoly position in search is a real issue that deserves real discussion, not just the usual hit piece from another bitter journalist.
Sounds like you stopped after the hook. I don't blame you, if the hook is off-putting, the ultimate values of the piece may not align with yours anyhow.
But there is something to be learned from continuing to read after off-putting hooks, including that the author might have something genuine to say beyond just looping in people that agree with them with inflammatory hooks.
