> Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability?
Yes, but dominant platforms that ordinarily benefit from network effects should absolutely be forced to be interoperable, as any restriction to interoperability is tantamount to abuse of monopoly power. This is remarkably light regulation by any standard, and it comes with a very clear rationale.
Just to clarify, since my phrasing may have been a bit ambiguous: I am definitely on board with mandatory interoperability. It's just that at the same time I worry about the implementation of such policy having new loopholes of their own to be abused in a similar "only benefits big tech in the end" way. But that does not stop me from being in favour of trying it and improving it as we go.
Yes, but dominant platforms that ordinarily benefit from network effects should absolutely be forced to be interoperable, as any restriction to interoperability is tantamount to abuse of monopoly power. This is remarkably light regulation by any standard, and it comes with a very clear rationale.