Editor’s note: Besides tracking technological advancements and innovations, our author is a Juilliard-trained musical composer. He has created a musical piece titled “Freedom Tools” for you to enjoy while reading this column.
Technology was meant to make the world more open and connected. It broke the old rule that opportunity depended on location. With digital networks, affordable computing, and global communications, a coder in a rural town could sell software to customers worldwide, a teacher could reach millions of students without leaving home, and a designer in Nairobi could work for a client in New York. The internet has been, to a degree, a great equalizer, spreading knowledge, reducing barriers, and giving more people more ways to participate in the global economy. Technology has enabled globalization to a higher degree than ever before, and we (the global we) have all benefited from it.
Today, we are seeing a different reality emerging. Instead of using these tools to open doors, some are using them to build walls. Wealth, influence, and decision-making power are concentrating faster than ever in a smaller number of companies, platforms, and individuals. This is not just a tech story. It is a shift that affects markets, politics, and daily life. And while it might feel abstract, its effects are all around us in the way we communicate, shop, learn, and even think. The irony is that technology used to be about growing the whole pie, and it is becoming more about guarding my slice. When I went to Apple Developer University, the tagline on our fat three-ring binders was Bicycles for the Mind and we really meant it.
There is a term that captures a similar mindset: NIMBY, short for “Not In My Backyard.” It describes people who want the benefits of progress without any inconvenience to themselves. Everyone wants strong cell phone coverage, for example, but when it comes time to install the antennas that make it possible, many people object if one is planned for their own yard. The benefits are welcome, but the burdens are resisted.
Neighborhoods to Networks
The same pattern is now playing out in the digital world on a much larger scale. Many of today’s powerful companies and individuals built their success in an open, competitive environment. Once they have secured their position, however, there is a tendency to reduce competition, tighten control, and make it harder for others to follow the same path. This is what I call digital NIMBYism: “I succeeded in an open system, but now that I am secure, I will close the door behind me.”
Consider social media. In theory, the internet could support millions of small, self-governing communities, each reflecting the values and interests of its members. Instead, a few giant platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X dominate the conversation. They decide through algorithms that most people never see what billions of users read, watch, and share. This creates a central bottleneck for information and innovation, when technology could just as easily allow for a more distributed, locally driven set of conversations.
E-commerce tells a similar story. The web initially created a thriving landscape of independent marketplaces serving every niche imaginable. Increasingly, only within the shadow of one dominant player. Amazon controls much of the world’s online retail traffic, setting prices, deciding which products appear first in search results, and determining the rules sellers must follow. The underlying technology could have produced a much more diverse retail ecosystem, but centralization has prevailed.
The story repeats itself in cloud computing. The technology exists for a wide array of providers to host websites, store data, and run online services. But in practice, three companies, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud, host a vast share of the world’s internet infrastructure. Their pricing decisions and service policies can ripple across the global economy. Again, the tools of decentralization exist, but the business models have moved toward concentration.
Conscious Choice
It does not have to be this way. The same technologies that are now used to centralize control could be used to distribute it. Social media could be redesigned to support interconnected smaller communities that set their own standards. E-commerce has already flourished in a network of specialized marketplaces that cooperate and share infrastructure while keeping their independence. Cloud hosting could move toward open standards and interoperability, so no single provider has overwhelming control.
Making this shift will not happen automatically. Centralization is often more profitable in the short term, which is why so many organizations gravitate toward it. But in the long run, decentralization is not only fairer, it is more resilient. Systems with many centers of activity adapt faster, recover from setbacks more easily, and generate a richer variety of ideas and solutions. In business terms, decentralization is a hedge against risk and a driver of innovation.
Howard Lieberman created this image with ChatGPT.
The challenge is that it requires those with the most power to see openness as an investment in stability rather than as a threat to their position. It requires leaders in technology, policy, and business to resist the digital NIMBY instinct and focus instead on building systems that others can join and contribute to. It requires us, as consumers and citizens, to understand the trade-offs between convenience and control, and to support products and policies that keep the gates open.
This is not about rejecting technology. It is about choosing how we use it. We can accept the drift toward centralization, hoping the walls we build are high enough to protect us. Or we can take the tools of freedom and consciously use them to widen the circle of opportunity.
The positive path forward is still open. We can build networks that connect without controlling, platforms that empower rather than enclose, and marketplaces that share prosperity rather than concentrate it. These are choices, not inevitabilities. If we make them, we have a chance to create a digital future that is not just faster and bigger, but also fairer, more creative, and more enduring. As I have stated many times in these pages, it is easier today to start a company than ever before in history. If you can get online, you can gain unlimited knowledge and information, but you also have to deal with a great deal of competition. If the barriers to entry are low, then many will enter.
The walls we build today, the leaders we choose, and the companies we support, will either protect what matters or keep the future from getting in. The decision is ours, and we still have time to make the right one.
