The internet was once hailed as the great equalizer—a global network where innovation could flourish, information was free-flowing, and anyone with an idea could build something impactful. In its early days, the web represented openness, decentralization, and limitless possibility. Yet, as we move deeper into the 21st century, critics argue that this original vision has been compromised. The rise of digital monopolies has concentrated power in the hands of a few tech giants, raising a pressing question: is the internet becoming less open?

Over the past two decades, a handful of companies have emerged as gatekeepers of the digital age. Google dominates search and online advertising. Amazon controls a massive share of e-commerce and cloud infrastructure. Meta (formerly Facebook) owns the largest social platforms, including Instagram and WhatsApp. Apple and Microsoft wield enormous influence through operating systems, hardware, and software ecosystems.

Together, these firms not only drive technological innovation but also determine who gets access to markets, which voices are amplified, and how data is collected and monetized. While their platforms have become indispensable to daily life, their dominance also means that the open, competitive internet has shifted toward something resembling a walled garden controlled by corporate interests.

Unlike traditional industries, digital markets have unique features that foster monopolization.

1. Network Effects: The value of a platform increases as more people use it. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the biggest players attract more users, making it harder for smaller competitors to gain traction.

2. Data as a Resource: Companies that control massive amounts of user data can refine algorithms, personalize services, and gain competitive advantages that smaller firms cannot match.

3. Platform Lock-In: Once users are embedded in an ecosystem—say, Apple’s App Store or Amazon’s Prime membership—it becomes inconvenient to leave, further entrenching monopolistic power.

4. Acquisitions: Many tech giants prevent competition by acquiring potential challengers early, a strategy that has been criticized as anticompetitive.

The concentration of power in digital markets carries significant consequences for openness, innovation, and democracy.

• Reduced Competition: When monopolies dominate, startups and smaller companies struggle to survive, stifling innovation and limiting consumer choice.

• Control Over Information: A handful of platforms determine what news, content, or voices people see online, shaping public opinion and influencing democratic processes.

• Data Exploitation: With limited alternatives, users often have little choice but to accept invasive data collection practices.

• Barriers to Entry: The cost of breaking into markets dominated by Big Tech is so high that many entrepreneurs never stand a chance.

These factors collectively raise concerns that the internet is shifting from an open commons to a corporate-controlled infrastructure.

Around the world, governments are beginning to address the risks posed by digital monopolies. The European Union has passed the Digital Markets Act (DMA), aiming to limit the dominance of “gatekeeper” platforms and ensure fair competition. In the United States, regulators have explored antitrust lawsuits against companies like Google and Meta, arguing that they engage in anticompetitive practices.

However, regulation is a double-edged sword. Too much intervention could stifle innovation or create compliance burdens that only entrenched companies can afford. Too little regulation risks cementing monopolies for decades. Striking the balance between fostering innovation and curbing dominance is one of the defining policy challenges of the digital age.

Despite growing monopolization, there are signs of resistance. The rise of decentralized technologies, such as blockchain and Web3, aims to return power to users by creating platforms that are not controlled by single entities. Open-source software communities continue to push for collaborative innovation. Governments, civil society groups, and consumers are increasingly demanding transparency, accountability, and alternatives to Big Tech dominance.

Yet, these efforts face an uphill battle against entrenched interests, immense resources, and the convenience that centralized platforms provide. For many users, the trade-off between openness and ease of use tips in favor of staying within existing ecosystems, even at the cost of freedom and competition.

The internet’s original promise of openness and decentralization is under threat from the rise of digital monopolies. While these tech giants have brought remarkable innovations and conveniences, their unchecked power risks reshaping the web into something far less free and far more controlled. Whether the internet remains a global commons or evolves into a set of corporate fiefdoms will depend on how societies, regulators, and innovators respond in the coming years.

The question, then, is not just whether the internet is becoming less open, but whether we still have the will to protect its openness at all.