I think a distinction needs to be made between monopoly and 'best product'. Search is winner take all in many respects. As a user, I don't particularly care a

I think a distinction needs to be made between monopoly and 'best product'. Search is winner take all in many respects. As a user, I don't particularly care about the second best (because I don't pay). The best way to fix the situation is to get users to pay. And this could be done. Users can pay negative dollars (e.g. get paid). Why would a search engine want to pay it's users? Why would a retailer want to pay me to look at their ad? Why wouldn't they? Example:. My wife and I buy a not insignificant amount of stuff from LuLuLemon. So I have a deal for Lululemon. Pay DuckDuck half what you pay Google to show me your stuff. And DuckDuck, pay me half what they pay you. Right now DuckDuck gets zero. Google probably makes 20+ bucks a month off me. In this math, DuckDuck nets 5$! There is a natural equalibrium here. Advertisers quickly start paying zero to people that don't buy stuff, so users can't farm ads. But relevant customers get discounts. So now I actually care about making the trade off between second best but effectively cheaper or best but more expensive. E.g. a functioning market. To do this though, you have to start tracking users in some way. But Google already does this, so the situation doesn't change. Some form of surveillance is required to improve relevance. The difference here is, I can choose who surveils me and to what extent rather than being stick with the winner take all.