I must admit that I've not followed the case all that closely. But, assuming that the document does not lie, this part looks like a huge problem: > "Evidence s

I must admit that I've not followed the case all that closely. But, assuming that the document does not lie, this part looks like a huge problem: > "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down" I think this is a death sentence for any website whose that previously depended on unbiased search results. I remember reading sometime in the past that virtually all clicks go to the first two results, third and fourth barely receiving any, and other pages not even visited. Combined with the fact that google supplied 90% of all search traffic it looks clear that they were starving their competitors. To be honest I'm also skeptical of any open source, (hopefully distributed) social network from ever coming into existence. But I'm equally sure that what FB, and google, are doing with information about me is not the way to go. They are earning money with the information they are endlessly slurping up about me in any way they can. Rarely with my _informed_ consent. And if this is how the EU fights back, I'm all for it. Off topic/related: Like the bait and switch they do with youtube. I've had an account there for ages, long before social networks were a thing. I've got content up there, 2k video's that I've liked and would like to be able to keep visiting. But it has happened a number of times where I was forced to 'accept' the changes to the TOS. Youtube does not allow me to download my liked video's easily. Apparently what they are doing is not illegal, or maybe the courts have not caught up to the things like this yet. But it does create an adversarial relationship, therefore I dislike youtube, and loathe facebook and google these days. They are constantly taking steps to my disadvantage.