4 ms·

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. S

by 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?

by Faark 7y ago

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?