I do. These companies offer me choices and compete for my business. I can deploy to AWS (Amazon), Azure (MS), Google Cloud, or other competitors. My business will go to the one who gives me the best results for the least money. If they fail to provide me the services I want at a price that seems reasonable, or if I'm unhappy with them for any other reason, I can take my business elsewhere. Freedom and consent lie at the heart of private enterprise.

On the other hand, when a government tells me that I can't use the services I want to use and cannot trade with the people I want to trade with because of politics, and that I have to use different services because they're located in a particular region and favored by the government, that's not freedom, nor is it consensual.

Despite this, do you still recognize the countless tactics businesses use to lock their consumers in into their ecosystem as nonconsensual, or do you view that in a different light still?

You also mention innovation with regards to companies like Meta. How do things like the network effect fit into this model? To be more explicit, suppose I want to migrate off of Messenger to Signal. Meta won't allow bridges, and the people I know don't wish to switch. Surely it is not unreasonable for me to consider my continued usage of Meta's Messenger platform as nonconsensual, and my choices as impaired?

I personally regard this the same when people say stuff like "freedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences from that speech". Very clearly that betrays the expectations one would reasonably build when they hear such a phrase.