7 ms·

> This is, basically, just applying the principles of Net Neutrality to Google. I understand this way of thinking but the only trouble I have with this is that

> This is, basically, just applying the principles of Net Neutrality to Google. I understand this way of thinking but the only trouble I have with this is that unlike ISPs I can switch to bing in a heartbeat.

kuschku 9y ago
You still don’t get it. Why does no one of the americans ever understand it? I’ve heard almost 40 people (all US-americans) make that exact argument today. How does a website owner "switch" to Bing? They have to use Google. They have to be findable on Google. Tell me how I get access to users if I don’t have my site findable on Google, please. Tell me how I can get the same placement in Google results as Google’s own pages. It’s not about users being able to switch. That’s entirely irrelevant for this discussion. It’s as relevant as being able to replace the website logo with a browser addon.
- solipsism 9y ago
  You apparently don't get it. The user being able to switch is material to the question of Google being monopolistic. If Google is not monopolistic, antitrust regulations shouldn't apply. When the consumer has the free choice to switch, there is no justifiable cause to violate the liberty of the company. Though apparently the EU disagrees.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Perhaps it is not very know what the article 102 of the TFEU says: > Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States." Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. And there is no mention of monopoly, what it is used is "dominant position".
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Correct. And even the FTC found them guilty of abusing that: http://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/google-ftc.pdf http://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
    - solipsism 9y ago
      I quite clearly admitted the EU disagrees. You're talking about what the law is, which I don't dispute.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    So, monopolies that don't directly supply consumers can not exist?

kuschku 9y ago

You still don’t get it. Why does no one of the americans ever understand it? I’ve heard almost 40 people (all US-americans) make that exact argument today. How does a website owner "switch" to Bing? They have to use Google. They have to be findable on Google. Tell me how I get access to users if I don’t have my site findable on Google, please. Tell me how I can get the same placement in Google results as Google’s own pages. It’s not about users being able to switch. That’s entirely irrelevant for this discussion. It’s as relevant as being able to replace the website logo with a browser addon.

solipsism 9y ago
You apparently don't get it. The user being able to switch is material to the question of Google being monopolistic. If Google is not monopolistic, antitrust regulations shouldn't apply. When the consumer has the free choice to switch, there is no justifiable cause to violate the liberty of the company. Though apparently the EU disagrees.
- Oletros 9y ago
  Perhaps it is not very know what the article 102 of the TFEU says: > Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States." Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. And there is no mention of monopoly, what it is used is "dominant position".
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Correct. And even the FTC found them guilty of abusing that: http://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/google-ftc.pdf http://3rxg9qea18zhtl6s2u8jammft-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
  - solipsism 9y ago
    I quite clearly admitted the EU disagrees. You're talking about what the law is, which I don't dispute.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  So, monopolies that don't directly supply consumers can not exist?