Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisco255 | Hacker News Reader

Google's power today is far greater than Microsoft's ever was in the 90s, and yet they had to sit through years of antitrust trials. Now we have Republicans arguing for fair treatment and threatening the use of the FTC...while Democrats (the traditional antitrust party) have sat on their hands over the past decade on these issues. Presumably, as far as I can tell, neither party has any particular morals. They're for things that are good for their base and against things that are bad for their base. And in this case, a left-leaning tech elite is good for Democrats...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.

View on HN

> while Democrats have sat on their hands over the past decade

Well, except for when they didn't. A simple search reminds us of this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/ftc-to-an...

"Google emerged from nearly two years of intense federal scrutiny Thursday by convincing the Federal Trade Commission that even though rivals may suffer as the company continually refines its search engine, consumers often win through better, faster, more valuable answers to their queries."

This also ignores more recent requests from Democrats to look into Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/04...

"The new complaint comes from Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a progressive in the upper ranks of the Democratic National Committee. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission dated May 31, Ellison urged the watchdog agency to take a closer look at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, given that European regulators recently found that the search giant harmed its rivals and fined it $2.7 billion.

“The FTC should determine whether Alphabet has engaged in similar conduct in the United States and whether such conduct violates the FTC Act,” he wrote."

Those are just two cases I found in searches.

I wouldn't call this sitting on your hands.

> ...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.

We are. It's just getting drowned out by everything else that is happening.

Those are good finds, but none of this scrutiny compares to what Microsoft got in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... That the Obama-stacked FTC did not take Google to trial is sort of telling.

You got one company, presiding over 90% of the search on the web: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-chart-reveals-googles-t...

Might as well call Google the Ministry of Truth. They sit in a very powerful position over information and influence. China understands this, that's why they tightly control their search results.

Anyone arguing that one company should have so much influence without probably being subject to some sort of oversight or regulation, is naive at best.

> Those are good finds, but

nothing.

Your claim wasn't that they didn't receive enough scrutiny. Your claim was that people haven't done anything.

You lied, or at best, are seriously misinformed, and got called out for it, and now you are moving the goal post trying to pretend like you weren't wrong and ignorant. Just admit it. You were wrong, you didn't know, and yeah, they are trying to do something, but haven't found anything yet, and even in 2018, they are calling for investigations.

What more do you want? Do you want them to NOT investigate or ask for investigations?

The FTC chooses who they really go after and who they don't. And that's at their discretion. It's not a lie that the FTC has done nothing. They have glazed over on the fact that Google owns 90%+ of the search engine market. That's a monopoly. The Democrats of the early 20th century would have gone ape shit over a company with the size and power of Google. Take a look at FDR's actions, for example:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/word-mo...

Google makes Ma Bell look like a tiny tyke by comparison. Their position and influence over the modern internet is in a word, scary. There's no check on their power, and the Obama administration did nothing to check said power. I don't care what rubber stamps or certificate of approvals they got. Google is a monopoly. It's fine if the Democrats have abandoned that principle. Totally fine. But don't call that analysis dishonest.

Also, I'm not the only one mentioning this:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/348217-the-...

https://newrepublic.com/article/144694/democrats-face-import...

I hate to argue where you've said so much that's right, but neither party is really concerned about what's good for their base. They are concerned about what keeps them in power. Sometimes that is about doing what's good for your base, so they keep on voting for you, but sometimes you shaft your base to enlarge, enrich, or strengthen your kingdom. But in the end there are no statesmen — just power-hungry opportunists.

Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust. Making your argument a false equivocation. Should Google be subject to antitrust trials? I would say yes, but not because of a left or right leaning bias in their search results.

I think it's their 90% dominant position over the search market, mobile, advertising, and online video that should be subject to antitrust trials... As for the left/right leaning bias, I think that's all part of the same banana. Their powerful position gives them the flexibility to lean whatever way they choose with few, if any, market repercussions.

Being the best in the market isn’t an antitrust issue.

There isn’t any credible alternative to Google because they’re head and shoulders above everyone else.

There are other search engines, they just don’t measure up.

its not just that google has a search engine, they also own youtube, which plays a huge role into how people are getting their news today, as people watch less and less television.

bobdole123456's point is that monopolies aren't illegal but abuse of monopoly power is illegal (you're being downvoted because you do not explicitly address that fact).

But I actually think you raise an extremely interesting question: does pushing a political agenda using your monopoly position constitute an abuse of monopoly power?

The advent of privately controlled monopolistic forums is somewhat new. I don't think it's at all obvious how the spirit of anti-trust law should be extended in the age of platforms...

We're in new territory.

>Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust....

As horrible as this may sound, it is a cause for anti trust break up when those in power are right leaning.

I mean, let's not split hairs here. As a matter of pragmatic reality, that's pretty much what it comes down to.

This is totally beside the point. Antitrust law governs market dominance and manipulation of market competition. It has nothing to do with political speech. If it did, Fox News would be in serious trouble!

Disagree. Left leaning companies constantly get hit by legislation from left leaning politicians. See Amazon and BEZOS act for example. Airbnb and city legislations is another example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com