4 ms·

> no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when

by mrep 7y ago

> no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Faark 7y ago
There is probably choice from an end-user's point of view, yes. On that front you are arguing about best search results. But as site owner, you need traffic. SEO for some search engine built by your brother, used exclusively by your family, wont help you grow your business. You need eyeballs, and more than 90% of those are on google [0]. Pretending this is a perfectly functioning market and websites can just ignore google is... unrealistic. [0] http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
- mrep 7y ago
  It's definitely not a perfectly competitive market but this trope about GAFAM being monopolies is tiring. A monopoly can stagnate development on their product, raise prices and there's nothing customers can do because they have literally no other option. That is why monopolies are bad. If Google were to try and charge users for search, everyone would immediately switch to bing which keeps them in check from raising prices like they would if they were the only provider of search. They are in no way a monopoly.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.
    - mrep 7y ago
      Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.
      - Faark 7y ago
        For a proper exchange of ideas to function, the listening side has to try it's best to interpret the message as intended. Yes, to a degree does that include ignoring misuse of language. That obviously doesn't mean you can never give any feedback. > educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms Where did you do that? The only recommendation for a better term I see is "harmfully disproportionate market power", still quite a usable mouthful and made by someone else. Your contribution seems to boil down to "your wrong", and I'm still unsure if this is intended to be about the use of the word or the actual point. Probably both, with one being secretly used to support the other.
  - codegladiator 7y ago
    Not if the "charge for search" is actually paid by the website. Google is indirectly charging the users Google -> search results (for free) -> website (owner paid for seo/adwords and charge the customer) Similar thing happened with google maps while they were never a monopoly by your definition because other solutions exist.
  - Shaanie 7y ago
    His point is that Google isn't a monopoly from the user side. What if Google started offering the ability for websites to pay to increase their pagerank?
belorn 7y ago
If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. For example, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning: Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; With Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 we get supreme court cases that states things like: The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. And in an other supreme court case: The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited. Not a word about monopoly but a lot about behavior which in common speech people call monopoly but actually refer to behavior which is illegal according to anti-trust.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Even so, by the definitions you're copying, Google's competition is still a click away for consumers. Whether you use anti-trust synonymously with the word monopoly doesn't change the fact that Google will still show Bing and Yandex in the search results. An example of anti-competitive behavior here is actually from Amazon, when they had de-listed Apple TV and Chromecast from their marketplace for years because it competed with their Fire Stick.
- mrep 7y ago
  > If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.

by mrep 7y ago

Faark 7y ago

There is probably choice from an end-user's point of view, yes. On that front you are arguing about best search results. But as site owner, you need traffic. SEO for some search engine built by your brother, used exclusively by your family, wont help you grow your business. You need eyeballs, and more than 90% of those are on google [0]. Pretending this is a perfectly functioning market and websites can just ignore google is... unrealistic. [0] http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

mrep 7y ago
It's definitely not a perfectly competitive market but this trope about GAFAM being monopolies is tiring. A monopoly can stagnate development on their product, raise prices and there's nothing customers can do because they have literally no other option. That is why monopolies are bad. If Google were to try and charge users for search, everyone would immediately switch to bing which keeps them in check from raising prices like they would if they were the only provider of search. They are in no way a monopoly.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.
  - mrep 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.
    - Faark 7y ago
      For a proper exchange of ideas to function, the listening side has to try it's best to interpret the message as intended. Yes, to a degree does that include ignoring misuse of language. That obviously doesn't mean you can never give any feedback. > educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms Where did you do that? The only recommendation for a better term I see is "harmfully disproportionate market power", still quite a usable mouthful and made by someone else. Your contribution seems to boil down to "your wrong", and I'm still unsure if this is intended to be about the use of the word or the actual point. Probably both, with one being secretly used to support the other.
- codegladiator 7y ago
  Not if the "charge for search" is actually paid by the website. Google is indirectly charging the users Google -> search results (for free) -> website (owner paid for seo/adwords and charge the customer) Similar thing happened with google maps while they were never a monopoly by your definition because other solutions exist.
- Shaanie 7y ago
  His point is that Google isn't a monopoly from the user side. What if Google started offering the ability for websites to pay to increase their pagerank?

belorn 7y ago

If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. For example, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning: Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; With Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 we get supreme court cases that states things like: The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. And in an other supreme court case: The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited. Not a word about monopoly but a lot about behavior which in common speech people call monopoly but actually refer to behavior which is illegal according to anti-trust.

bduerst 7y ago
Even so, by the definitions you're copying, Google's competition is still a click away for consumers. Whether you use anti-trust synonymously with the word monopoly doesn't change the fact that Google will still show Bing and Yandex in the search results. An example of anti-competitive behavior here is actually from Amazon, when they had de-listed Apple TV and Chromecast from their marketplace for years because it competed with their Fire Stick.
mrep 7y ago
> If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.