If sellers were obligated to sell on Amazon that would be the case, but it's not, is it? Ironically, people complaining about this are exacerbating the issue. If sellers who actually cared left Amazon it would loosen Amazon's dominance in e-commerce.

They're obligated to by the grip Amazon already has on the e-commerce market. Letting Amazon make anti-competitive moves that increase their grip will only worsen the situation.

This grip you're describing only exists because they don't leave, and nothing is stopping them. Again, no one is forcing people to sell on Amazon. They could use Shopify or sell on eBay.

People act as if you have to sell on Amazon. You don't. That assumption and expectation is why Amazon is dominant to begin with. Sellers should leave if they don't like it, and that will naturally soften Amazon dominance.

> and nothing is stopping them.

Imminent collapse and bankruptcy when they leave due to Amazon's dominant market position. That you can set up a shop anywhere does not mean anything when all of your potential customers are only going to the Amazon digital strip mall.

Listen, maybe you've never heard about antitrust law, but using one's dominant market position to maintain dominance in the market to the injury of consumers is pretty much the exact definition of an antitrust violation in the US. So write your local congressman complaining that antitrust law is restricting your ability to lick Jeff Bezo's boots, or run away to the Rockies somewhere and start a radically laissez faire community where everyone's asking about John Galt, but as the law stands in this country, it's illegal, and that's a good thing.

Just maybe some people don’t think that the government having more power and control is a good thing?

37% is not a monopoly. If you have a differentiate product, you can set up your own website through Shopify or any number of places.

And if you haven’t been paying attention, the FTC has been laughed out of court for the last five years every time it has gone after BigTech

What possible complaint could you have about government overreach that doesn't equally apply to corporations? Antitrust law is the only thing standing between us and a corpohellscape "America, an Alphabet Company".

Government has the power of the state to force their wills on people. Please tell me a scenario where an adtech company will gain the ability to take away my rights and property the way the government can?

The government has a “monopoly on the legal use of force”.

Look no further than Florida to see what an overzealous government can do when you disagree with them or the police that raided a newspaper office because they reported on police corruption.

I’m much more worried about when the police are behind me because “I don’t look like I belong” in my own neighborhood than the Google car mapping my street.

Companies can use anti-competitive behavior to curtail your rights in all sorts of ways. Look at America's storied history with company towns. Free speech doesn't get you very far when being blacklisted from the company store means you starve, or your company scrip that you've been being paid in is no longer accepted to keep you housed, or they pay the Pinkertons to beat you senseless for using the word "Union". The reason we don't have that anymore (well, except for that last one Amazon) is government regulation.

The government at least has the obligation to appear as if it's beholden to your will and rights. Corporations have no such qualms.

So please tell me a realistic scenario where Google goes from an adtech company to one that can take away my freedoms and shoot me with impunity?

Also please tell me a scenario where Amazon takes over all retail?

If you haven’t been paying attention, the justice system and political parties gerrymandering hasn’t even been trying to act like they are behaving fairly.

The governor of Florida has actively been punishing companies both big and small that have been speaking out against him.

[delayed]

I've often seen the complaint that developers think the law is purely strategic, like a computer, and if they can find a technicality then the law must follow through.

But that's not how this works.

It's technically true that fiber has competition if another ISP is offering dialup in the same area. No one in their right mind would agree that's actually a competitor in anything but name.

And so it is here.

If not selling on Amazon is an existential risk for your company, Amazon is effectively a monopoly, and THAT is what the law cares about.

Sellers are in effect obligated to sell on Amazon, because the alternative is “go out of business”. That’s the whole goddamn point of FTC intervention.

Every company has the right to set the terms and fees to use them. A “tax” is something you are mandated to pay. I get plenty of crap advertised to me on FB that you can’t find on Amazon.