People like principles, and classifications. Monopoly abuse, surveillance capitalism, ad engine... All extra loaded with implications. I think to get anywhere,

People like principles, and classifications. Monopoly abuse, surveillance capitalism, ad engine... All extra loaded with implications. I think to get anywhere, we have to avoid rather than seek these. Digital monopolies are not telecoms or railroads. Policy by analogy is a bad idea. DHH makes two kinda unrelated claims/observations. One is that Google is spamming, and that this is a sign of monopoly. Like you, I think this is a pretty weak case. Second, is "pay-to-play." If Basecamp don't buy ads, basecamp's competition will outrank them in search results. Users search "dominos." Google suggests "pizza hut" unless dominos pay. A lot of "advertisers" running campaigns just for their brand name. This seems rotten, by the very weak, very unestablished conventions of the internet. There are monopol-ish issues with big techcos across lots of areas (1) EU Case: adwords controls most search ads. Google's search competitors are on unequal terms there. (2) Free speech on social media. FB & Twitter's adhoc policies are becoming the de facto free speech laws. (3) biggest-dataset-wins feedback loops. All these have sheer size at their core.