3 ms·

Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Monopolies decrease choice for the customer and hamper innovation. That reason should be good enough and has been good en

• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Yes, in the US, for government to break up a company, there must be something illegal done. > This doesnt happen in any other industry, not with any other company and definitely not in any industry as lucrative as search ads. Clearly, you are posting from an alternative universe where Microsoft, who has held overwhelmingly long-term dominance in at least two different markets significanlty longer than Google has existed (desktop OS and enterprise productivity suite.) > Thirdly, Search is critical infrastructure. If true, that would be a reason for it to be a public utility, not to break a Google. But if we can't even get a consensus that actual internet access should be a public utility, good luck making the case that search is. > How do we know that publishers do not self-censor content critical to Google lest they get bumped from search. In systems with due process, punishments aren't based on “how do we know X is not true”, but instead in “here is the evidence by which we know X is true”.