The overlooked monopolies of the internet: who really owns the web?
- 21 days ago
- 4 min read
Our data shows that just a few companies control key aspects of the web, from communications to email to appointment scheduling. While this concentration raises serious concerns about privacy and innovation, we also take a look at the efforts to bring core internet values like decentralization back to the forefront. Who really owns the internet, and how can we reclaim it? Read on to learn more.
Who controls the internet’s infrastructure?
A handful of tech giants—Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft—wield monopolistic control over key aspects of the web, from search engines and social media to cloud computing and app marketplaces. Their influence dictates how billions of people access information, communicate, and conduct business online. However, beyond these five companies, other critical parts of the internet are also dominated by just one or a few powerful players, creating a digital ecosystem where choice might often be more illusion than reality. Let’s dive into the data.
We’ve explored the corporations behind internet infrastructure in previous blog posts. Web hosting, for instance, is largely concentrated in the hands of just three companies. The vast majority of websites are built using WordPress, and the backbone of the internet—such as domain registration and SSL certification—is overseen by just a few key companies.
When it comes to some fundamental online services, just a select few lead the way as well. As seen in Figure 1, WooCommerce, Shopify, and Wix eCommerce account for two-thirds (70.4%) of the shopping cart system market. Microsoft 365 holds a 57.7% share of online email marketing services, while Calendly manages 63.6% of online appointment scheduling. Regarding live chat solutions, Meta’s Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp Business lead with 61.3% of the market, and Google Tag Manager, Analytics and Call Conversion Tracking power nearly half (46.6%) of all web analytics tools.
Other key sectors of the internet are similarly concentrated. The largest affiliate program on the web is Amazon Associates with a 53.9% market share. Google reigns supreme in both online advertising and mapping services, with its ad network comprising Google Publisher Tag, AdSense, Ads, AdSense Custom Search, and Marketing Platform dominating the industry with 69.2% and Google Maps holding a 74.2% share of map technologies. Meanwhile, YouTube is the undisputed leader in video playback, accounting for two thirds (66.7%) of all embedded video players on the web.
Even crucial behind-the-scenes elements of the internet remain far from decentralized. 46.6% of SSL certificates are issued by Let’s Encrypt, while GoDaddy is the largest domain registrar with a 27.1% share.
The risks of a concentrated internet
The concentration of power discussed here raises serious concerns. Tech oligopolies not only collect vast amounts of user data, but also shape what information people see, often with little transparency or oversight. Critics argue this threatens privacy, innovation, and even democracy itself. Supporters counter that these companies offer valuable, widely used services and that users are free to seek alternatives. However, with such overwhelming market dominance, true competition remains stifled, leaving consumers with limited choices.
Governments and regulators worldwide are now wrestling with how to curb this growing power. Potential solutions include breaking up major companies, restricting mergers and acquisitions, enforcing interoperability between platforms, implementing stricter data usage rules, and demanding more algorithmic transparency. Whether these efforts succeed remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the internet, once envisioned as a decentralized and open platform, is now largely controlled by a select few corporations.
The question is, will that ever change?
In a world increasingly dominated by centralized or concentrated internet services, a fascinating anomaly persists: the control of core internet security rests, surprisingly, with seven individuals, scattered globally. Each holds a unique key; each key a component of a system that (theoretically) allows for the shutdown and reboot of the entire internet. While the details of the keys' precise functionality and security measures remain rather opaque, this system demonstrates a remnant of decentralized control. That said, it entails other risks, like being potentially vulnerable to circumstances like the unavailability or compromise of keyholders.
This seemingly retro approach offers a counterpoint to the consolidation of power within the digital realm, and highlights a tension between security and the potential for both exceptional control and catastrophic failure in this model. This system’s reliance on human trust and geographical dispersion stands in stark contrast to the ever-increasing concentration of power within the tech industry.
Further, blockchain and related technological developments are built on the idea of decentralization. At its core, a blockchain distributes control among more than one participant and thus transfers decision-making authority from one to many. Tech privacy activism is growing in the digital sphere, and one group has even launched an experimental data-leak warning system based on the principles of a gas leak: the Smell of Data device (seen above) alerts users if digital insecurity is present or data is leaking.
The future of the internet
Of course, it’s hard to compete against the interests, cashflow, and (political) influence that big tech has on the web and our modern world. But this does not mean we have no options: decentralization remains a core tenet of the internet, and people are still fighting for its value in the face of challenge. Our own choices come down to ensuring our privacy settings are up-to-date, knowing where our information goes, and supporting small and growing (digital) companies over the big one, where possible. Importantly, policy is a key way to shape the behavior of big companies: according to the NYT,
The tech giants have been preparing… to comply with a new European Union law intended to increase competition in the digital economy. The law, called the Digital Markets Act, requires the biggest tech companies to overhaul how some of their products work so smaller rivals can gain more access to their users.
Successes in these fields are a quiet testament to the enduring possibility of decentralized power and a vital reminder that even in our hyper-connected world, some critical functions can still rely on a balanced distribution of authority, far removed from the monolithic structures of modern tech giants.
