There's nothing more frustrating than someone arguing for a position you yourself favor with terrible, easily-knocked-down arguments. I actually do think Google

There's nothing more frustrating than someone arguing for a position you yourself favor with terrible, easily-knocked-down arguments. I actually do think Google should be regulated, but the author is putting forward the worst possible case. His theories about first mover advantage and network effects are both ridiculous: Google wasn't even the third search engine in existence, and there are little to no network effects in search. They got where they are from quality of product and economy of scale. Ryan Cooper, try rewriting this article from the angle of the effects of Google's monopoly, not the causes. The causes angle is more tempting, because we understand that regulation should be avoided, and so if it must be done we want to feel like the company did something "bad" to "deserve it", but that's a fallacy.