Being able to present something a certain way and it actually being that way are two different things. The nation is considering a law that says, if you link to

Being able to present something a certain way and it actually being that way are two different things. The nation is considering a law that says, if you link to news you have to pay X. Google is trying to figure out if the money they make from linking to news Y is greater than X. If Y < X, why would they continue linking to news? It's not a strong arm tactic, just a simple cost-benefit move. And it's not a demonstration of market power either. The proposed regulation only applies to companies already deemed to have market power, so only such companies are considering reacting to the regulation this way. But if the law applied universally, you would obviously see the exact same calculation happen at companies that don't have market power. Most would come to the same conclusion as Google seems to have done: it's not worth it to link to news under these terms.