This is an interesting thing and we can argue about it, but it's a distraction from the fact we have a de-facto 'single source' for a considerable amount of inf

This is an interesting thing and we can argue about it, but it's a distraction from the fact we have a de-facto 'single source' for a considerable amount of information. Google fits many of the criteria for the definition of monopoly. Once you consider both systematic issues (i.e. Chrome, Android, default browser choices, behavioural things) and even brand and mass-market issues ... it's a monopoly. The control of most information by a single source entity simply is not beneficial to the world, even financially. Google could possibly be broken up, at least the distribution of search entry points should be a different business than search itself i.e. Android/Browser, Search different businesses. Google's control of distribution (i.e. Chrome, Android) is much akin to Standard Oil's control of the railroad system, which was really how they developed their monopoly. Also given the inherent power here, we may want to at least have some regulation on how information is processed. We regulate so many important things, we can require certain things for tech companies as long as they are smart regulations. Edit: put differently we have, without realizing it, put an enormous amount of trust and goodwill into Google - they are 'mostly' doing a good job with it, but there's not reason for us to believe that will continue indefinitely. Though I'm wary of the politicking and sometimes total lack of understanding of this stuff in Congress/Parliament ... at least theoretically we should be able to get past that.