system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Big tech (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.) should be collectively owned and democratically controlled by all its human users

Monopoly is natural and inevitable for data giants. If your 'product' is simply the flow of information, the only feasible business model is to be pretty much the only player in a given market. Humans must recognize that data giants are creatures fundamentally different from, and superior to, brick and mortar corporations of the previous century, and even sovereign states. New rules must be established for them.

Data is the new oil: whoever controls the flow of information can or will eventually control everything. The problem is not that Twitter deplatformed Trump. A democratic process to establish rules for when someone can be 'censored' would have likely ended in the same result. The problem is that those rules were not made democratically and are not enforced in a transparent and accountable process. Instead the rules are made and enforced by a few data oligarchs with zero accountability to the people who create all the value they feed off, and who are most prominently affected by their decisions. 

More and more 'real' jobs will become obsolete and be performed instead by AI, which will probably be owned by tech giants. This directly removes economic power from humans, and concentrates it in the hands of the few major shareholders and directors of these companies (Amazon's destruction of the entire retail value chain in the US is a good example). This immense value should instead flow to the human participants of these systems, as some form of data dividend or UBI, to offset the loss of income caused by automation. 

No given nation state can or should constrain tech giants. The machinery of traditional democracy is too slow and inefficient. Additionally, the impacts that these companies have are transnational by their very nature. The democracy that should control them has not yet been born but, I believe, will be based online, rather than geographically determined jurisdictions.

I don't believe that the options available in terms of antitrust regulation can effectively deal with data monopolies. Antitrust law is based on a number of presumptions that simply don't apply to giant tech (such as the presumption that monopoly will always lead to a failure in quality and a rise in prices). Breaking them up will take us a few steps back in terms of information flow, but will not change the fact that monopoly is completely logical and even necessary for a data-driven platform to function properly. Whatsapp only works because pretty much everyone uses it. It should be owned by everyone.

Humans generate the data that enrich these companies and give them overwhelming power to shape and exploit our perceptions and our very lives and futures. Thus, humans should also control them and benefit from the value they 'create'.
gpt
This is an inefficient, pointless plan.

Nobody wants to vote for who's in charge of their local server hub. 90% of users will just never vote (look at the ratio or lurkers here now). Low voter turn out is a great way to get high dissatisfaction.

The attention of the voters is a fundamental limit to democracy. Tech companies are so complicated and fast changing their is no way to run them this way. Even people in the industry get overwhelmed.

Governments don't have revolutionary changes every 3-5 years. It's fairly stable. If you understood how it worked in 1990, you understand it now. The same is not true for tech.

The people would get fed up and demand a return to the old system.