> If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share.... if smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be u

> If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share.... if smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail By using Google services you are Google's product, not Google's customer. Google's services are free attractions, provided in exchange for highly-profitable surveillance capabilities. In other words, the value an individual may derive from a interaction with Google is decoupled from the profit Google can derive from that interaction. This breaks the key assumption behind classic "free market" models. For Google, the two are related only in aggregate and in abstract, via network effects, largely as proxies for monopoly status and capital accumulation. 18th C. arguments about "free markets" and competition naturally springing up from animal spirits don't work very well for the modern technology industry. > There is absolutely zero evidence of [technology monopolies exerting pressure on governments] Examples of companies paying fines in exchange for breaking the law (a pretty generous punishment considering what happens to non-corporation people) is evidence that companies have not yet taken over from governments, but I don't think that was the parent's point. The largest gripe from governments is flagrant tax avoidance/evasion. If you need "evidence", I'd recommend keeping tabs on technology news in the 'mainstream media' (e.g. various EU governments re: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple tax evasion; Tim Cook pretty openly asking the US to change tax law for him because he's got a lot of money, and is happy to deprive his countrymen of it).