3 ms·

"Google should not use a near-monopoly position in the browser to privilege it's own sites and services" is a very simple standard, and this really is not a com

"Google should not use a near-monopoly position in the browser to privilege it's own sites and services" is a very simple standard, and this really is not a complex case. It only becomes complicated if you start trying to rephrase a simple principle as: "Google shouldn't privilege their sites unless they mean well, and then the result is immaterial, but no wait actually I didn't mean immaterial, I meant minimal, and anyway it's not like Zoom isn't still popular so-" Or... Google could also just not ship invisible extensions as part of Chromium's build process that privilege Google-owned services with extra API access in direct contradiction to the principles of an independent Internet. Because the effect of casually breaking that contract isn't minimal. It does actually matter that the web be a neutral platform. If businesses expect that Google can get away with privileging Google platforms in the core browser, that perception and allowance of interference degrades the entire Internet as a commercial platform - and of course emboldens Google to go even further in the future.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
There is no contract, except in your head. The internet doesn't have to be independent just because you want it it to be.
- danShumway 2y ago
  > There is no contract, except in your head. I... what? Today I learned that the Federal Trade Commission is a figment of my imagination. I'm sorry, your argument has devolved to the point where you're now saying that Chrome privileging Google sites isn't anticompetitive behavior because antitrust isn't a natural law? I can't believe I have to say this, but that's not the standard that the FTC or courts use.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    The FTC and DOJ aren't here to create an "independent internet". It's not the goal. You keep moving the goal posts.
    - danShumway 2y ago
      Google is literally being sued right now for, in part, using browsers (both its own and others through browser deals) to privilege it's own services. No, the FTC was not created for the purpose of the Internet, but that is not a thing that anyone said, and I very genuinely believe that you are smart enough to understand that I was talking about the provably false claim that a neutral Internet that doesn't exist to privilege Google is some fantasy that only tech nerds have rather than a repeated principle in multiple current antitrust efforts by multiple governments around the world, including the US. That being said: > You keep moving the goal posts. You're right, and I apologize. We weren't discussing whether or not antitrust was a natural right. That's off-topic, and that's on me. We started this out discussing, in your words: > Anti competitive behavior is generally perceived to be about doing things that put the company in question in a better position without improving the product. Which I hope at this point we've established is just straight-up wong, that's just not an accurate evaluation of antitrust. Then of course you went on to say there was no effect, and that if there was an effect it didn't matter because "result = immaterial" (which is also absurd, even the most conservative, limited perspective on antitrust in the government does not say that the results of a company action aren't relevant to antitrust). And then you went on to imply that having a neutral platform on the web isn't something anyone should expect anyway, which... yeah, okay, absurdities aside you're correct that now we're starting to get off topic. The on-topic response to this as far as I can tell is: I don't think you understand what antitrust is, how it works, or why we have it, and everything you're saying here is absurd. But it's very easy to get caught up in minute rhetorical debates: part of what's been wild about this conversation has been watching you make even more indefensible claims that you never had to make, just to avoid the appearance of one contradiction. And it's worth resisting that impulse, taking a step back from this and looking at the original questions: was anyone harmed? Is this anticompetitive behavior? You say no, but you also say that no one should have any expectation of an Internet that exists independently of a single company's monopoly hold over its standards and APIs. So you're not really in a position to know if anyone was harmed because where competition on the Internet is concerned, you appear to reject an entire category of commonly understood harm. So just taking a step back and looking at these ideas: are people overreacting over Google? Does this cause harm? Was the purpose of this to make people's lives better, or was it to privilege Google's services over competitors? If you believe absurd things about antitrust, competition, corporate intentions, and the Internet itself -- it doesn't really mean much when you say that Google's intentions are good and everyone is over-concerned. If you tell people not to be concerned about the loss of a neutral, independent Internet, and it turns out you don't believe in a neutral, independent Internet, then... surprise, people aren't going to listen to you.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

There is no contract, except in your head. The internet doesn't have to be independent just because you want it it to be.

danShumway 2y ago
> There is no contract, except in your head. I... what? Today I learned that the Federal Trade Commission is a figment of my imagination. I'm sorry, your argument has devolved to the point where you're now saying that Chrome privileging Google sites isn't anticompetitive behavior because antitrust isn't a natural law? I can't believe I have to say this, but that's not the standard that the FTC or courts use.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  The FTC and DOJ aren't here to create an "independent internet". It's not the goal. You keep moving the goal posts.
  - danShumway 2y ago
    Google is literally being sued right now for, in part, using browsers (both its own and others through browser deals) to privilege it's own services. No, the FTC was not created for the purpose of the Internet, but that is not a thing that anyone said, and I very genuinely believe that you are smart enough to understand that I was talking about the provably false claim that a neutral Internet that doesn't exist to privilege Google is some fantasy that only tech nerds have rather than a repeated principle in multiple current antitrust efforts by multiple governments around the world, including the US. That being said: > You keep moving the goal posts. You're right, and I apologize. We weren't discussing whether or not antitrust was a natural right. That's off-topic, and that's on me. We started this out discussing, in your words: > Anti competitive behavior is generally perceived to be about doing things that put the company in question in a better position without improving the product. Which I hope at this point we've established is just straight-up wong, that's just not an accurate evaluation of antitrust. Then of course you went on to say there was no effect, and that if there was an effect it didn't matter because "result = immaterial" (which is also absurd, even the most conservative, limited perspective on antitrust in the government does not say that the results of a company action aren't relevant to antitrust). And then you went on to imply that having a neutral platform on the web isn't something anyone should expect anyway, which... yeah, okay, absurdities aside you're correct that now we're starting to get off topic. The on-topic response to this as far as I can tell is: I don't think you understand what antitrust is, how it works, or why we have it, and everything you're saying here is absurd. But it's very easy to get caught up in minute rhetorical debates: part of what's been wild about this conversation has been watching you make even more indefensible claims that you never had to make, just to avoid the appearance of one contradiction. And it's worth resisting that impulse, taking a step back from this and looking at the original questions: was anyone harmed? Is this anticompetitive behavior? You say no, but you also say that no one should have any expectation of an Internet that exists independently of a single company's monopoly hold over its standards and APIs. So you're not really in a position to know if anyone was harmed because where competition on the Internet is concerned, you appear to reject an entire category of commonly understood harm. So just taking a step back and looking at these ideas: are people overreacting over Google? Does this cause harm? Was the purpose of this to make people's lives better, or was it to privilege Google's services over competitors? If you believe absurd things about antitrust, competition, corporate intentions, and the Internet itself -- it doesn't really mean much when you say that Google's intentions are good and everyone is over-concerned. If you tell people not to be concerned about the loss of a neutral, independent Internet, and it turns out you don't believe in a neutral, independent Internet, then... surprise, people aren't going to listen to you.