> The point is essentially one of dependency and voluntaryness. False dichotomy. Gradations exist. Particularly in the ad business that is, in effect, a two-wa

> The point is essentially one of dependency and voluntaryness. False dichotomy. Gradations exist. Particularly in the ad business that is, in effect, a two-way market for intentional attention online. > An actual government collecting taxes or essential to life with no viable alternatives isn't an actual choice anymore than "your money or your life is". Even if the optimal outcome rests on choosing them that is still a choice. This is over-simplified. Consumers have no way to choose whether businesses buy Google ads, that choice is necessitated by market dynamics. So the only agency a consumer has is to stop using Google. Good luck with that. I suppose moving completely off-grid is possible, but a market that forces these types of choices is neither legitimate nor defensible, therefore it will eventually get dismantled one way or another. > If people stop using Google in the apocalypse how can it not be apocalyptic for them? You seem to be conflating the situation of a non-monopolist with a monopolist here. By definition a monopolist's services will continue to be used. > We have seen plenty of "invulnerable incumbents" fall once they are so stupid they lose the net advantage of scale and a good name. I strongly agree that this is the best outcome. I'd like it to happen sooner, and if antitrust intervention allows that, so much the better! Antitrust is inherently always pro-business, in the larger sense of the word.