> There are plenty of other non-coercive tools we can use to "fight" google, and it's called "competition". Coercion works pretty well though. I don't see why

> There are plenty of other non-coercive tools we can use to "fight" google, and it's called "competition". Coercion works pretty well though. I don't see why we should not use this effective tool, when we agree that Google is doing a lot of wrong things that should be stopped. If you believe the government is doing other bad things, against other people, fine you can argue that. But that is not particularly relevant, and is just a non-sequitor. I don't see how, in this particular situation, using coercion against Google is bad. Seems like it would be pretty good to me. It can both be true that the government is doing bad things against others, but that in this particular situation, using a monopoly on violence, to use coercion against the Google leadership is a good thing. To argue otherwise is just an irrelevant point, that is not directly related to the immediate situation.