4 ms·
Well, um, that's exactly my point. It's not that I can switch to another service, it's that other people won't, unless they each have a strong reason to. So if
by rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Well, um, that's exactly my point. It's not that I can switch to another service, it's that other people won't, unless they each have a strong reason to. So if I feel a ubiquitous web service maligns my business, I should be concerned about their power over the populace, not just me.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- raldi 11y agoDo you believe that every company with a dominant market share -- even one gained by building a better mousetrap -- deserves to have that power disrupted by the government? If not, could you name an example of such a company that you would leave alone?
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoThe potential for abuse exists anywhere, even if the choice to abuse isn't made. Likewise, the government should have the potential to disrupt a company, just as it should not do so unless it has an excellent reason. This is a question of place and values. All things considered I think Google's market position is O.K., but if I were a European I would probably think differently. Not everyone wants to live by everyone else's rules (or End User License Agreement). If Europeans believe in antitrust action against Google, even if it is economically disruptive, we should respect that. Just as we should expect them to let us live as we desire elsewhere.
- CardenB 11y agoI think you misunderstood his argument. His point is that you won't switch from Facebook because your friends won't switch, while your friends have no bearing on your choice of search engine.