I know, the arrogance of one person to unilaterally decide on society's behalf whether it is ready for innovation X, Y, or Z. It's more of a mental exercise for me, and an input to my own conscience... but hey, you asked.
Personally, the FAANG bunch are off limits from my point of view. I cannot morally reconcile helping them snowball any further on the financial or innovation front. What innovation I generally see come out of them is generally divergent from my ethical framework of acceptable to nurture the normalization of in society.
Rampant, non-informed/non-consented to A/B testing at population scales, wholesale building of surveillance enabling datasets at a population/worldwide scale, enablement of fraud and front-running of marketplace participants, engagement in monopolistic behavior through erecting aggressively high barriers to entry and denying users and developers to develop freely, as well as capitulation to highly unethical demands to placate a nation allowed to develop a stranglehold on hardware supply chains.
They're all too bloody big. Their scale magnifies the ripple effects of anything they do, and stymies the possibility for new entrants to the market at large. They all have too much capital under the control of far too few minds. They all represent a clear and present threat to social order, and any shred of possibility of maintaing an open and healthy competitive market.
So yeah. I'd say it presents a danger to continue to advance their goals. It's odd, as I used to be a full speed ahead, innovation at all costs kind of dude; but seeing what the last decade has done to the world has given me second thoughts.
I don't mind their infrastructure existing. I just feel queasy about having it all under what is essentially a single leadership group. I really don't think that bodes well. I have no proof or studies to back it up other than that we've stayed away from that way of doing things historically, and when we haven't done it as well as we should have. Problems(TM). Ensued.
