4 ms·
As long as those services are profitable and they can outcompete startups then there’s nothing illegal or wrong about that. There’s no right that startups need
by eanzenberg 8y ago
As long as those services are profitable and they can outcompete startups then there’s nothing illegal or wrong about that. There’s no right that startups need to survive or have bias to succeed.
- wybiral 8y agoThat really depends on how you interpret the nuance of antitrust law. In the past we've taken a harder stance on giants like this and as a matter of precedence we can do it again.
- piaste 8y agoThere's no right that tech giants need to be allowed to exist in their current form, either. If a person doesn't break any pre-existing laws, then they must not suffer any legal consequences, sure. And nobody is suggesting that Page and Brin should spend a minute in court or pay a cent in fines. But a corporation isn't a person, it's a business instrument, and if the United States were to judge that the existence of that instrument is detrimental to the greater security / stability / welfare of the nation as a whole, they would have every right to write a new law to ban usage of that instrument, i.e. ban the existence of Google in its current form, as they once wrote a new law to ban the existence of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation.
- eanzenberg 8y agoIn that case, I’d rather err to less govt intervention than more. Govt should be built to write and execute laws, not pick winners.
- satyrnein 8y agoBreaking up a company certainly harms people, by diminishing the value of the company's stock, which is private property. Not only people like Page and Brin, but more sympathetic characters like workers whose retirement funds contain Google stock. This may be worth it for society, but it's a little too convenient to say no people will be harmed.