4 ms·

I don't see why Google's market share matters. If it was 60% instead of 96%, couldn't you make the same argument that Google Maps was receiving an unfair advant

I don't see why Google's market share matters. If it was 60% instead of 96%, couldn't you make the same argument that Google Maps was receiving an unfair advantage, just of a somewhat different magnitude? I also don't see why it matters whether there are different business categories involved. If you typed "best search engine" into Bing, and Bing artificially ensured that bing.com was the first result, wouldn't the same criticism apply? It seems to me that the arguments being made apply to all cross-promotions. You could say that Yahoo is giving Yahoo Mail an unfair advantage by promoting it on their portal. I don't see a meaningful difference.

IanCal 9y ago
Having more market share means you have more power. The level of overall harm you can cause is greater. If you're a minor player, and you cut out a particular competitor from your results, they're not hurt that much and people are less likely to come and use your service. If you are the main entry point for the vast majority of people, then limiting your results can easily kill whole groups of businesses. Yahoo only linking to yahoo mail when people search for email providers isn't going to kill off other providers. Google (if almost all results are found through it) doing the same could. That's ok if Google treat their own services like they treat other people's, and let them compete on merit. But if they use it to just kill competition then that's not good for consumers.
- dlubarov 9y ago
  But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. If Google and Bing had 50/50 market share, then do you think the widgets would be acceptable? Bing also shows shopping widgets, so unaffiliated sellers wouldn't be any better off in that scenario.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    > But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.

IanCal 9y ago

Having more market share means you have more power. The level of overall harm you can cause is greater. If you're a minor player, and you cut out a particular competitor from your results, they're not hurt that much and people are less likely to come and use your service. If you are the main entry point for the vast majority of people, then limiting your results can easily kill whole groups of businesses. Yahoo only linking to yahoo mail when people search for email providers isn't going to kill off other providers. Google (if almost all results are found through it) doing the same could. That's ok if Google treat their own services like they treat other people's, and let them compete on merit. But if they use it to just kill competition then that's not good for consumers.

dlubarov 9y ago
But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. If Google and Bing had 50/50 market share, then do you think the widgets would be acceptable? Bing also shows shopping widgets, so unaffiliated sellers wouldn't be any better off in that scenario.
- IanCal 9y ago
  > But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.