3 ms·
I'd argue it semi-intentional in the sense there's liitle error to fit it. Why? Because when the DOJ comes knocking with charges of monopoly Google can say, "Do
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
I'd argue it semi-intentional in the sense there's liitle error to fit it. Why? Because when the DOJ comes knocking with charges of monopoly Google can say, "Does this history and dumpster fire look like a monopoly to you?"
Their dysfunction is a form of self-defense (while search + ads keeps printing money).
- Y_Y 4y agoIs this satire or super-insightful? I feel some sort of Poe's Law of Reality has been creeping in in the last ten-ish years [0]. Like this post is silly and funny, but I find it somewhat plausible too (at least as far as a reductive explanation of the behaviour of a huge corporation can be). [0] see e.g. Curtis's Hypernormalisation
- chiefalchemist 4y agoWe all know what Google's bread & butter is. They are going to defend that. Full stop. To think it can't take some form outside typical expectations is simply naive given the numbers involved. We're not taking about your child's lemonade stand. We're talking about a corporation that is by all accounts intentional. Why is this seen as "no way"? Doesn't that make it all the more possible?
- MereInterest 4y ago> “Does this history and dumpster fire look like a monopoly to you?" The obvious answer is “yes. Because that’s what happens when a company has no external pressure and can throw its monopoly weight around into unrelated markets.