Is Google really a monopoly? Many people use Outlook, iPhones, Apple Maps, AWS, Bing, HERE maps etc...
I'm not particularly familiar with the infrastructure of the ad business, but my layman's view is that alternatives are slim outside of Google for search engine and the more general web and Facebook for specifically social media.
Antitrust prosecutions are heavily dependent upon shaping the "market" which supposedly is being monopolized.
There is no good argument for antitrust against the Apple App Store if the market is "all transactional marketplaces where software can be purchased", but there is a good argument if the market is narrowly defined as "all transactional marketplaces where software can be installed onto iOS mobile devices".
Look for similar shaping of the market by both sides (the prosecutor will attempt to narrow the market and the defendants will attempt to broaden the market).
Also worth noting that Amazon already chipping away at Google's market share dominance in online advertising[1]. By the time the DOJ's prosecution goes thru the courts, the market is likely to be significantly changed from where it was when AG Sessions (who started these investigations) started crafting an anti-tech-giants strategy.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/amazon-is-eating-into-google...
This is clearly the case though? The App Store doesn't sell, say, Windows software, and iOS devices refuse to run software from (for example) the Google Play store.
These numbers are really scary, if you care about fair competition and a just, balanced society.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/544400/market-share-of-i... [3] https://beta.trimread.com/articles/16433 [4] https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon-gaining-google-search-a...
Exactly. The Federal government speaks out of both sides of it's mouth. If monopolies fail to spur innovation as is suggested by many, then regulatory burdens such as the Jones Act do even more explicitly.
Increasingly? When wasn't that true? You have to go back to pre Civil War, where the economy was heavily geographically split due to movement/transport limitations, which mostly voids the discussion (it was very much a local and regional, agriculture-heavy economy, with limited manufacturing and a very limited consumer goods market as we know it today; not very comparable to anything that exists now). Once you get near to or beyond the Civil War and firmly into the industrial era, the combinations begin essentially immediately and they dominate their segments rapidly. Vanderbilt got so rich by aggressively creating monopolies in his day, in transport. It was far more brutal than anything you can imagine today, in all respects including the options/alternatives that consumers had. From US Steel in 1901 to the few giant railroads to Standard Oil to American Tobacco to the couple remaining giant auto companies (eg GM, Ford, Chrysler) that survived that industry's shakeout in the following decades. Further, you had a small group of industrialists and financiers that cross-controlled everything regardless (and they had few laws limiting their behavior), as with eg Rockefeller heavily dictating terms with the railroads to crush his competition.
Leap forward in time: Sears, PAN-AM, IBM, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, AT&T, US Steel, US Rubber, Bethlehem Steel, Armour & Co., Kodak, Polaroid, a very small number of giant media companies like CBS, and so on.
Yesterday was dominated entirely by massive corporations. It doesn't matter what decade you select. Whether it's 1910, 1950, 1980, or 2020. It wasn't better in the past.
Markets always do this consolidating naturally. Your only option to prevent that is to use the government to prevent or interrupt it.
Most people I've seen equate monopoly with "95% of people use", which really isn't a monopoly. As far as I'm aware, dominating a market is not the sole criteria of a monopoly (although I am aware it is a sign of successful one, correlation/causation).
For someone who doesn't follow this kind of thing, can anyone point to concrete examples of "no other company does this" monopoly or "actively stifling competition" anti-trust practices taken by google without just scoffing and saying its obvious?
For example, Google doesn't have a monopoly on search; I can use DuckDuckGo just fine (although patent trolling complicates this a bit). Google does, however, have a monopoly on search traffic; if Google delists your site, it has effectively disappeared from 90+% of peoples' (mis-)conception of the internet[1]. A government the purports to support a free market must[0] regulate the latter case.
0: in the sense that not doing so directly communicates that they do not in fact support a free market
1: and this could be true to a lesser degree even if it had only, say, 45% market share
Edit: there might also be regulations that should apply to de-facto infrastructure like search engines regardless of monopoly status, but those are, by specification, not based on monopoly status.
As much people talk about Google's monopoly, I've not seen anyone bring up this point, which is what I was talking about in my previous comment. And I would absolutely agree with you that this could represent an issue of abuse of your position in the market. Would the next step be to prove this abuse occurs? For instance, if I google "maps" I'll get google's maps first, for sure. But I'll also get apple's maps, bing's maps, open map, and mapquest on the first page.
"Majority blue" is in a majority of their employees vote Democrat? That's just what happens when you're headquartered in California, in a metro area, with a workforce that skews younger.
I don't think that Google is somehow pushing liberal objectives in a meaningful way.
if they were, i'm sure a careful examination of topics highlighted in google doodles i'm sure would illustrate this one way or another
But true or not, it is perceived that way by those who are aggrieved (social conservatives in the USA)... which is what your comment's parent was discussing.
I'm not disagreeing with your comment, but you aren't disagreeing with your parent comment either.
It doesn't matter if they're biasing search results or not, that's complicated anyways, highly visible culture war stuff is what his audience is primed for.
A study showed that Google News returned links to CNN vastly more often than links to Fox News, even though Fox News has triple the market share of CNN.
See also censoring of YouTube videos: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-let-google-get-away-with-c...
> How else to explain why Google has restricted more than half of our 15 videos that are pro-Israel—even one by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper?
Google may or may not be doing this intentionally; it may be some byproduct of the algorithm plus unconscious bias from left-leaning Googlers. But the result definitely pushes liberal objectives. Your typical Googler reviewing YouTube videos living somewhere like San Francisco simply isn’t equipped to figure out what is and isn’t within the mainstream of acceptability.
And, come on man. Seriously, every news network except Fox News for the past almost 3 years pushed the Russian collusion narrative and it's turning out to be almost the exact opposite. So, you really need to rethink what you view as quality news. I'm not saying that I think Fox News is the best quality, prefer Bloomberg to be honest.
Just because you don't agree with political ideology of a news network doesn't mean it's low quality.
[1] https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/category/news-and-me...
I mean, one possibility is that Google’s algorithms are causing the politics of web site visitors people in France to affect the search results of people in Kansas. That seems like an unintentional form of pressing liberal agendas.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/cord-cutting-accelerates-raisin...
> Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of nearly unfettered presidential authority over the executive branch of the U.S. government.
> Barr as attorney general in 1992 authored the report The Case for More Incarceration, where he argued for an increase in the United States incarceration rate
> Having criticized the Mueller investigation before taking office, Barr did not recuse himself from overseeing the investigation as attorney general. After receiving Mueller's report he issued a four-page letter to Congress, describing what he said were its principal conclusions, and adding his opinion that the evidence presented did not establish obstruction of justice by Trump. Special counsel Mueller privately responded that Barr's letter had misrepresented the report.
> Barr intervened in the criminal case against convicted Trump associate Roger Stone, recommending a lighter sentence for Stone than the career prosecutors who had worked on the case. In May 2020, the Justice Department under Barr announced the dropping of charges against ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn despite an earlier guilty plea by Flynn, which he later filed to withdraw.
So yeah, he's a hatchet man for the president, through and through. This is just revenge for tech's left leaning donations and stance, at the bidding of Trump of course. Big tech has long been in the sights of conservatives and this is just another shot in what's been a growing conflict.
Likewise for your point that Barr endorses a theory a unitary executive. So do many people. What does that prove? It’s not a controversial idea. The very first sentence of Article II of the United States Constitution says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It doesn’t even say something like “there shall be an executive branch and the President shall be in charge of it.” It vests the executive Power (capitalization in original) in a single person. Article I and Article III, by contrast, “vest” the legislative and judicial powers in institutions (Congress, and the Supreme Court). The choice of phrasing appears pretty deliberate. And notably absent from Article II is any mention of career bureaucrats who can exercise the executive Power" of the United States independently of the person in whom that Power is vested.
Yes. Barr was well known as a controversial politician even in those times. You can find numerous news reports affirming this. His entire political career is one giant walking controversy. While I agree that his words and opinions were more mainstream at the time, he was at the storm of more than a few scandals. Iran contra pardons are another obvious one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/05/b...
> "{Are his actions} politically motivated? {Or} self-serving? I'm asking myself those same questions," said one key Justice Department official
> Much of what Barr has done since his confirmation seems to benefit the administration politically. He pleased conservatives by reversing policy and offering Justice Department help to states that want to get out from under court-ordered prison population caps.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/19/opinion/essay-the-patsy-p...
Lots of stuff out there.
[1]https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-...
If Google wasn’t a majority “blue” company they would have been trust busted under Obama.
Certainly can't help them. However, I think that's a moot point if everyone can agree they are the most troublesome company in the "land of large companies". It seems like every few months I see outrage on HN over "Google increased pricing for $X service, but there aren't really any other options" situations.
Cable companies have taken billion in federal subsidies, lied about universal deployment and speeds, and unless there is local competition have taken customers to the cleaners, forced the purchase of bundled channel packages, charged rentals for modems they were not renting (I should know - I called in every month to have charge removed) etc.
I can think of a long list of other large / monopoly type companies that regular abuse consumers at far higher levels than google does.
Consumer spend on google is actually pretty small.
Google controls 91.89% of the search market [1]
G controls 68% of the browser market [2]
G's android is on 84% of phones operating systems [3]
G has 73% of the search advertising market [4]
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/544400/market-share-of-i.... [3] https://beta.trimread.com/articles/16433 [4] https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon-gaining-google-search-a....