Decentralization vs. Monopolization: A Tech Dilemma

This post is partly political critic and also a perspective about globalised word and monopoles. Selcuk Bayraktar is Turkish president Erdogan’s son-in-law and top guy of the defence industry. So, he has ultimate power both economically and politically.)

I came across Selçuk Bayraktar’s statement about monopolization on LinkedIn.

One search engine,
One or two social media platforms,
A few shopping sites…

The collapse of just one of them can almost take down the critical infrastructure of all the connected countries in the world.

High technology and innovation, which were expected to spread prosperity across the globe, at times end up locking the entire world system.

When high technology becomes monopolized on a global scale, it becomes this fragile.

In the interconnected world we live in today, woven with cyber-physical networks, independence in every field of technology is indispensable for societies.

That’s why;
For a fully independent and prosperous Turkey,
We say: #MilliTeknolojiHamlesi 🌍🇹🇷

It surprised me to see a man who uses state power against his competitors, and who operates with almost unlimited budgets, approach the issue this way.

He’s partly right, but let’s raise the stakes here: even one undersea cable snapping could instantly cripple the world’s flow of information and functionality. That alone shows how interdependent economies are. In that case, even if you build domestic infrastructure, it’s useless without communication with the outside world.

Countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran try this approach—banning or restricting globally used platforms. And what happens? People still turn to those platforms, using different methods to avoid being cut off from the rest of the world.

Perhaps, when it comes to Microsoft products, I can partly agree with this populist statement. Any outage does disrupt a lot of work. But if you’ve built your critical state infrastructure entirely on Microsoft products, you weren’t really in the race to begin with. Many institutions and organizations already prefer to develop their own systems or use open-source platforms. And they keep backup plans ready for the worst-case scenario. Instead of a state-centered solution, as Bayraktar imagines, much more democratic, decentralized infrastructures already exist.

Of course, Bayraktar is aware his statement is populist. After all, he’s seen as a hero by certain groups and probably feels the need to say what they want to hear—unless he and his inner circle are just hyping each other up.

He claims today’s reality is undemocratic.

But the spirit of San Francisco isn’t like that. As you grow, you support other innovative small companies. They grow too. Then you buy them, bring their teams into your company, or they go off to create something new again. This is the mentality that made Silicon Valley famous and turned it into the world’s technology hub.

Today, as tech companies gain access to massive amounts of data and astronomical revenues, of course more power comes into play, and acquisitions and competitive crushing increase. This can be seen as monopolization, since smaller firms can’t match that power. Still, the “one search engine, one or two social media sites, a few shopping platforms” view is simply wrong.

There are plenty of search engines. Different people choose different ones for different reasons. Google is the most used for specific reasons:

1. People don’t make conscious technology choices—they stick with what’s easiest for them.
2. Google was one of the first big players in the field.
3. Google offers a personalized user experience.

Yes, issues sometimes arise with Google—data privacy, advertising, data sharing. But those are legal and competition topics.

Meanwhile, there’s a lot of work happening on Web3 as an alternative to today’s internet—“you won’t be tracked,” “your data will be safe,” “a decentralized, democratic internet,” and so on. Whether this is good or bad is debatable. Every technological promise has its dark side—see: the dark web.

He also mentioned “one or two social media platforms.” In reality, there are countless social media sites, often niche-focused. Some governments even support their own domestic platforms. So why do people stick to one or two popular ones?

1. Global communication
2. More inclusive platforms

Even Trump has his own social media platform. You can imagine the rest.

We’re no longer in the 20th century. Everyone knows what’s going on and wants to stay informed. For thousands of years, empires ruled the world—systems that, beyond families, tribes, and ethnic groups, acted as unifying forces. In the last 200 years, nationalism broke them apart. The price was two world wars. Now, corporations run the show. Again, systems that go beyond ethnic concerns. This could end in disaster—or, on the contrary, become the most inclusive and unifying system the world has ever seen. Either way, the reality today is that the whole world is interconnected and interdependent. Like the ecosystem of the Amazon rainforest, everyone’s unique traits are part of the whole.

To live free and single like a tree,
But brotherly like a forest,
This yearning is ours…

The “few shopping sites” idea is also pointless. TEMU, for example, has reached into every corner of the world, sparking debate over low prices and customs loopholes. Getir has expanded into Europe and beyond. Trendyol, likewise. And there are countless others. Every country has numerous e-commerce platforms. Some get acquired, some keep going as they are. As long as you provide good service, you can survive competition and grow. This is how many ideas become big companies. To think of the pioneers in this field and still talk about monopolization sounds more like bad faith and populism.

If you can’t provide the same quality everywhere, if you can’t satisfy customers, that’s your fault—not the system’s.

Think about it!

In Turkey, cargo companies, distribution companies, retail sales sites, and other shopping sites are generally domestic. Some are so successful that global systems used worldwide look for other ways to enter the Turkish market. Yet many companies end up in lawsuits with their employees or customers. Some set prices however they want because they have no competitors. Some can’t handle distribution, or product supply quantities, or delivery times. When people look for alternatives, they’re blamed. This is the real monopoly.

Think about it!

We still haven’t managed to break the taxi industry’s stubbornness. Martı is sometimes in physical conflict with taxi drivers. Uber is banned, Bolt is absent, Tier is absent, Wolt is absent, and the domestic alternatives are limited or restricted. PayPal isn’t available. You can’t even use the most basic apps in Turkey. And “service quality” isn’t even a concept.

To ignore all this and claim “the world’s systems are monopolized, long live domestic and national”… I don’t know… I can’t find the words. And the ones I can find, I can’t write here. His monopolization in the defense industry, and patent grabbing under the Teknofest brand, is ironic in itself. Yet beneath his post, there are countless support messages from people saying “You’re right, Selçuk Bey” and waving flags. That’s what really saddens me.

From someone with this much power and influence, I’d expect him to stay away from politics and encourage technological competition—if he truly cares about Turkey.