[satanfirst]

You really have to make a distinction between monopolies of control and the rest. If you can go to multiple shops, restaurants, etc, then you have selection as control. The troublesome ones here have a lot of lock-in, if you can just move towns, switch phone OSes, etc, then you've probably sacrificed quite a bit to avoid that lock-in.

[owenversteeg]

Going somewhere else where you don't have control is not control. Being able to choose who you surrender control to is better than nothing, but it is not control. At the end of the day you are still reliant on other people who have no incentive to care, where you have limited recourse. I have a friend whose landlord screwed her over so she moved. Landlord of the new place sells, and the buyer landlord sucks. No control. You get your accounts closed by Google and you move to Microsoft. Microsoft closes your accounts too. No control. Imagine the OP of this piece cancelled the movers and hired new ones. They would probably have similar results! That's not control!

[satanfirst]

Control is met by having ample choice. You are eroding control if you settle for a duopoly where your movement between them is more hassle for you and balances out by the unhappy moving in the other direction.