By my reading, the point of the bills mentioned is to reduce monopolistic practices by major tech companies - to prevent them from using their marketplace to unfairly advantage their own products. There is some debate about what it might specifically result in, and even whether it's fair (after all, grocery stores have private label items too). I've read the Chamber of Progress' analysis of the bill, and in that analysis they say the bill "could" result in X, where in this letter they say that it "would."

By implying the intent is to just ban stuff, this letter implies malice instead of encouraging active engagement in democracy. How about consider where the other side is coming from (monopolies are bad), and disagree respectfully on whether the issue is actually a problem or where the cost benefit ratio is?

"This is not to say that the digital economy cannot be improved. Regulators could use more funding to better monitor market developments. Data portability measures could make it easier for us to switch between platforms, making digital markets more competitive. But these proposed bills do nothing to address these problems."

These are tiny modifications that don't address the root issue of anticompetitive practices. Look, I get what it's like to be on a board that needs to fundraise and try to remain independent. I've been there. But come on. The best way forward is likely somewhere between these token suggestions and the very broad language of these bills you dislike.

Chamber of Progress: "Our work is supported by our corporate partners, but our partners do not sit on our board of directors and do not have a vote on or veto over our positions." However, partners include: Amazon Automattic DoorDash Facebook Getaround Google Grubhub Instacart Lime Lyft Nuro Twitter Uber Waymo Wing Zillow

Yeah apple code should be open source so everyone has access to it to create whatever sh!t they want so they can complain to apple about why it doesn't work when apple should have known that someone would do x,y,and zed with it once they made it open source because consumer "A" bought the phone and therefore bought the code and development behind it and should do whatever they want with it.

Echo systems work as well as they do because theyre designed and controlled to work well.

@PP
Reforming anti-competitive practices in ecosystems is not the same thing as requiring them to be open source, nor does it require "anything goes", nor does it imply the customer owns the code.

I pay a fee for water I use in my home. It is regulated through a meter. When that water is discharged from my home, I still own it. I pay a conveyance fee for that discharge.

That discharge is captured and reused by government entities to water government parks and golf courses. Sometimes my discharged water is provided during drought to other property owners. That is water I own.

Should I be compensated for that water I own?

Unfortunately High Tech provides a lot of campaign funds to both sides of the floor in Congress so it’s difficult to manage what they do, not to mention the time it will take to do it if seriously considered. The biggest threat we as a public face from the internet giants is the search capabilities that they control and the information they get to regulate because of their politics. Their ability to sensor is just one of the major threats to our Republic. Sadly, Eric Swalwell isn’t interested in addressing that cause, but then he has other things on his mind.

Just mentioning Eric Swalwell brings up a numbers of topics to discus about him as a Representative where this subject is just noise to distract from his lack of character and accomplishments.