> At the same time, what Google is doing seems nakedly uncompetitive — thus the paradox. The point of antitrust law — both the consumer-centric U.S. interpretat

> At the same time, what Google is doing seems nakedly uncompetitive — thus the paradox. The point of antitrust law — both the consumer-centric U.S. interpretation and the European competitor-centric one — is ultimately to protect consumer welfare. What happens when protecting consumer welfare requires acting uncompetitively This is a very interesting question. I can understand why people hate AMP and why Google comes of as an 800 lb gorilla flexing his muscles. But then, in absence of Google's force-feeding of AMP, why didn't a free market solution pan out? Why didn't we see successful websites which prioritize excellent user experience over anything else? Or why didn't we see widespread monetization alternatives for publishers than the ad-based revenue model? It seems consumers really don't want to pay for quality content on the web[1] and/or publishers are inept enough to not being able to offer quality content for which users will fork over money[2]. Efforts like AMP or Chrome ad-blocker, while anti-competitive on one hand, also seem to be loved by users and publishers alike because market ultimately failed to come up with a better alternative. [1] It raises an interesting question - why are people willing to pay for Netflix / HBO, but not for NYT? I believe the answer lies in exclusivity of the content. I have to pay HBO in order to watch Game of Thrones. I can read about a topic covered by NYT at some other website for free. [2] Its somewhat amusing to see that NYT still shows me ads even after paying them for digital subscription.