11 ms·

DOJ proposal would require Google to divest from AI partnerships with Anthropic

111 points by donsupreme 2y ago

duringmath 2y ago
The former Microsoft lawyer leading this prosecution is doing Microsoft's bidding.
- sverhagen 2y ago
  Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen?
  - duringmath 2y ago
    Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes. Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
    - Grimblewald 2y ago
      preferable would be preventing google+anthropic but also breaking up ms + openai
      - duringmath 2y ago
        Ideally the feds would stay out of it and let the market do its thing.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        As someone who remembers a time before Google, no. Letting "the market do its thing" only works until a few companies accumulate enough power to monopolize the market. The last two decades have seen being the next Google transformed into being acquired by Google, which has been to the detriment of everyone.
        adrr 2y ago
        I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Netscape? IE didn't become dominant until 2000+. And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways. The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money.
        adrr 2y ago
        Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft,
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Apple and Google don't compete on phones, because they've each intentionally built incompatible ecosystems. See earlier comment about consumer devices. Office suites have Google sharing an MS Office-compatible suite they purchased. Apple has MS Office on its platform. But no real competition or innovation. Who aside from Microsoft runs a gaming platform? What looks like open competition gets a lot narrower in overlap once you look at the details. Which is exactly what you'd expect, if you allowed companies to get too big and too dominant: they're not dumb, so they strategically rig the game in their favor to disadvantage new entrants, while carteling with similarly sized peers to ensure everyone mostly stays out of each other's pools.
      - inlined 2y ago
        Doubt that’s on the table unless Microsoft is also sued. Without a joint ruling this wouldn’t be balanced
        Grimblewald 2y ago
        Doesn't mean we a) can't hope b) shouldn't hope
  - lmm 2y ago
    The status quo is bad for Microsoft, anything with the potential to shake it up is worth doing. And they'd get a head start.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions. I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
    - vinay427 2y ago
      > even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution. This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.
      - vlovich123 2y ago
        It’s a reasonable take meant to explain GPs statement and sentiment regardless of the underlying truth of his statement and pushing back on what I found to be unfounded sarcasm that added nothing to the conversation.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Interestingly, that same argument was made for Nokia and in the end seems like it was probably true in that specific case.
infamouscow 2y ago
[flagged]
- creato 2y ago
  > Instead, they decided to make an existential bet and risk of creating enemies. What are you talking about?
- quickslowdown 2y ago
  [flagged]
daft_pink 2y ago
does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?
- duringmath 2y ago
  We can hope, his DOJ might amend their demands or the judges he appoints will overturn it on appeal if needed.
- Handy-Man 2y ago
  Not really. He and his backers actually want this to happen to GOOG.
- ocdtrekkie 2y ago
  So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them. On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit. The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away.
  - xrd 2y ago
    Musk took over Twitter and then started xAI. Trump Social should announce they are going to be adding AI and resell Anthropic. They can take their 20% and everyone is happy.
  - chucke1992 2y ago
    It also does not help that Google is often seen together with various left leaning initiatives - like Google is one of the big proponents. Plus there was some backlash on Twitter over Youtube hiding Joe Rogan video and so on.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
infotainment 2y ago
It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.
- klysm 2y ago
  Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area
  - infotainment 2y ago
    Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
    - mu53 2y ago
      They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical. If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
  - myworkinisgood 2y ago
    Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > smaller company That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap. ... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company.
      - adrr 2y ago
        2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?
bg24 2y ago
Hope this gets nixed. It might be a relevant case back in 2020, but no longer a valid case now. From the wikipedia case: "The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers." Where will be the search monopoly by Google in 2025? If search monopoly slowly evaporates, where will be the advertising monopoly?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Google's entire argument against being regulated has been 'We're not monopolizing search, people choose to use us!' The latter part also happens to conveniently be true when you buy all the available space that a competitor would need -- default placement in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Android. You don't get to rig the game and then claim the results actually demonstrate everyone naturally loves you.
  - pcr0 2y ago
    On the flip side, if default placement was eliminated and browsers asked users which search engine they'd like on first launch...I still believe most users would pick Google anyway and the main loser would be Firefox as search engine placement is the majority of their revenue. Furthermore, ChatGPT reaching 100m users in 2 months also suggests that browser placement isn't the biggest factor into where users send their queries.
    - eviks 2y ago
      "Most" isn't relevant here, if share goes down from 90% to 51% - monopoly problem solved. Same with the factors- ok, let it be the second-biggest factor, so?
      - Ferret7446 2y ago
        You are being extremely optimistic with that number. I would put it around 80-85%. Google search usage is not going to drop 50% just because it's not the default.
patrickhogan1 2y ago
[flagged]
- dmix 2y ago
  Maybe it's like what the FBI does, when they go for you it doesn't matter if they win for the original primary reason because they'll find something to get you with and you'll negotiate down to some form of them winning.
  - kolinko 2y ago
    Sometimes it ends up with US government splitting businesses - like Bell being split into AT&T and the others 50 years ago
    - iamacyborg 2y ago
      The chart on the wiki page showing the subsequent consolidation of the Baby Bells is pretty fascinating though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan...
- frognumber 2y ago
  Why? Genuine question. To me, it doesn't feel extreme at all, relative to former antitrust regulations or to what's needed for a functioning market. I would have felt bad about these about two decades ago, but Google has not been a good player in recent years. Geopolitically, it feels off.
friedtofu 2y ago
http://archive.today/Hm8f6 http://archive.today/Hm8f6
waffletower 2y ago
This proposal seems like a powerful subsidy for Microsoft and OpenAI. Why can they partner while Google and Anthropic can't? It is strange to penalize a non-monopoly partnership like this.
- whatever1 2y ago
  Because realistically only open ai / Microsoft stand a chance to compete with Google search / ad stack
- stg22 2y ago
  The two companies are not the same; their dominant positions are in different markets which means the anti-trust implications of them extending into a specific market have to be judged separately. As an extreme example, Oracle had a dominant position in the enterprise database market in the late '90s, but it wouldn't have been an abuse of that position if they'd integrated a web browser into Oracle 8.
  - anakaine 2y ago
    I disagree somewhat regarding markets, segmentation, and offering. Both have a Web search function as a headline offering. Both have ad enabled platforms. Both are integrating their AI into office and productivity platforms. Both are running integration APIs for their LLMs. Both are actively engaged in research. Both are large market players. Breaking one will absolutely give the other an unfair advantage and entrench a market leader, which is against the principles of antitrust.
  - waffletower 2y ago
    I can use Anthropic, Gemini, and OpenAI interchangeably (and actually keep the three open as tabs in the same window). This argument doesn't make sense. Monopoly relief should be applied only to monopolistic products, and not strengthen someone else's monopoly.
chucke1992 2y ago
I think with Trump's administration Google will have a tough time.
- xvector 2y ago
  Is it bad that I want Google to totally collapse all the internet infrastructure that relies on them if they lose this case? Sick of people treating the only companies really pushing tech forward like a piñata.
dismalaf 2y ago
It really feels like they've got some weird vendetta against Google and are just trying to kill it. Which really sucks because Google is the only big tech company that I haven't had negative interactions with. Using Apple and MS products feels like constant friction to try "force" me into their ecosystem. Whereas with Google you can just use a product, have it work with any device, any OS, across devices and you're never forced into anything else. The DOJ also seems to be going way beyond their mandate in saying Google monopolizes search and ads. If the Microsoft precedent is anything to go by, just require Android users to choose a browser and search engine, allow other ad companies to bid on showing ads on search results or something, that seems fair. But forcing them to sell Chrome, open proprietary algorithms to competitors and divest from business parnerships is way over the top and really, really feels like the government is doing a favour to Microsoft and Apple. Maybe Google didn't cooperate enough on something classified?
- __loam 2y ago
  Search is an essential utility used by basically everyone on the planet with an internet connection. Google has a lock on 96% of that traffic and has increasingly made business decisions with respect to search that hurt the quality of the results and hurt both consumers and the people who get indexed by search. Google can unilaterally destroy your business with small opaque algorithm tweaks. They also increasingly have a monopoly on the browser, making decisions like deprecating support for ad blocking because it hurts the business. Google makes about 16-22 billion dollars a quarter in profit but they still do layoffs and they still make decisions that harm consumers but help their own short term growth. Search is a basic utility that is essential to the function of the internet. It's like water and electricity. There are huge structural barriers to being able to compete in that market, so if we care at all about basic economic theory, Google probably ought to at least be operated as a non-profit, and realistically be subject to massive anti-trust enforcement considering they are the modern robber barons on top of our communication networks.
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    There's search engines other than Google and there's very, very minimal barriers to using a different search engine; literally just type in Bing.com instead of Google.com. Hell, if you're on MS Windows which has a similar monopoly on desktop devices, Bing will be shoved in your face over, over and over again and using Google actually requires more effort...

111 points by donsupreme 2y ago

duringmath 2y ago

The former Microsoft lawyer leading this prosecution is doing Microsoft's bidding.

sverhagen 2y ago
Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen?
- duringmath 2y ago
  Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes. Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    preferable would be preventing google+anthropic but also breaking up ms + openai
    - duringmath 2y ago
      Ideally the feds would stay out of it and let the market do its thing.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        As someone who remembers a time before Google, no. Letting "the market do its thing" only works until a few companies accumulate enough power to monopolize the market. The last two decades have seen being the next Google transformed into being acquired by Google, which has been to the detriment of everyone.
        adrr 2y ago
        I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Netscape? IE didn't become dominant until 2000+. And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways. The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money.
        adrr 2y ago
        Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft,
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Apple and Google don't compete on phones, because they've each intentionally built incompatible ecosystems. See earlier comment about consumer devices. Office suites have Google sharing an MS Office-compatible suite they purchased. Apple has MS Office on its platform. But no real competition or innovation. Who aside from Microsoft runs a gaming platform? What looks like open competition gets a lot narrower in overlap once you look at the details. Which is exactly what you'd expect, if you allowed companies to get too big and too dominant: they're not dumb, so they strategically rig the game in their favor to disadvantage new entrants, while carteling with similarly sized peers to ensure everyone mostly stays out of each other's pools.
    - inlined 2y ago
      Doubt that’s on the table unless Microsoft is also sued. Without a joint ruling this wouldn’t be balanced
      - Grimblewald 2y ago
        Doesn't mean we a) can't hope b) shouldn't hope
- lmm 2y ago
  The status quo is bad for Microsoft, anything with the potential to shake it up is worth doing. And they'd get a head start.
karaterobot 2y ago
I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions. I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
  - vinay427 2y ago
    > even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution. This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      It’s a reasonable take meant to explain GPs statement and sentiment regardless of the underlying truth of his statement and pushing back on what I found to be unfounded sarcasm that added nothing to the conversation.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Interestingly, that same argument was made for Nokia and in the end seems like it was probably true in that specific case.

infamouscow 2y ago

[flagged]

creato 2y ago
> Instead, they decided to make an existential bet and risk of creating enemies. What are you talking about?
quickslowdown 2y ago
[flagged]

daft_pink 2y ago

does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?

duringmath 2y ago
We can hope, his DOJ might amend their demands or the judges he appoints will overturn it on appeal if needed.
Handy-Man 2y ago
Not really. He and his backers actually want this to happen to GOOG.
ocdtrekkie 2y ago
So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them. On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit. The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away.
- xrd 2y ago
  Musk took over Twitter and then started xAI. Trump Social should announce they are going to be adding AI and resell Anthropic. They can take their 20% and everyone is happy.
- chucke1992 2y ago
  It also does not help that Google is often seen together with various left leaning initiatives - like Google is one of the big proponents. Plus there was some backlash on Twitter over Youtube hiding Joe Rogan video and so on.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

infotainment 2y ago

It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.

klysm 2y ago
Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area
- infotainment 2y ago
  Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
  - mu53 2y ago
    They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical. If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
- myworkinisgood 2y ago
  Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > smaller company That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap. ... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company.
    - adrr 2y ago
      2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?

bg24 2y ago

Hope this gets nixed. It might be a relevant case back in 2020, but no longer a valid case now. From the wikipedia case: "The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers." Where will be the search monopoly by Google in 2025? If search monopoly slowly evaporates, where will be the advertising monopoly?

ethbr1 2y ago
Google's entire argument against being regulated has been 'We're not monopolizing search, people choose to use us!' The latter part also happens to conveniently be true when you buy all the available space that a competitor would need -- default placement in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Android. You don't get to rig the game and then claim the results actually demonstrate everyone naturally loves you.
- pcr0 2y ago
  On the flip side, if default placement was eliminated and browsers asked users which search engine they'd like on first launch...I still believe most users would pick Google anyway and the main loser would be Firefox as search engine placement is the majority of their revenue. Furthermore, ChatGPT reaching 100m users in 2 months also suggests that browser placement isn't the biggest factor into where users send their queries.
  - eviks 2y ago
    "Most" isn't relevant here, if share goes down from 90% to 51% - monopoly problem solved. Same with the factors- ok, let it be the second-biggest factor, so?
    - Ferret7446 2y ago
      You are being extremely optimistic with that number. I would put it around 80-85%. Google search usage is not going to drop 50% just because it's not the default.

patrickhogan1 2y ago

[flagged]

dmix 2y ago
Maybe it's like what the FBI does, when they go for you it doesn't matter if they win for the original primary reason because they'll find something to get you with and you'll negotiate down to some form of them winning.
- kolinko 2y ago
  Sometimes it ends up with US government splitting businesses - like Bell being split into AT&T and the others 50 years ago
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    The chart on the wiki page showing the subsequent consolidation of the Baby Bells is pretty fascinating though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan...
frognumber 2y ago
Why? Genuine question. To me, it doesn't feel extreme at all, relative to former antitrust regulations or to what's needed for a functioning market. I would have felt bad about these about two decades ago, but Google has not been a good player in recent years. Geopolitically, it feels off.

friedtofu 2y ago

http://archive.today/Hm8f6 http://archive.today/Hm8f6

waffletower 2y ago

This proposal seems like a powerful subsidy for Microsoft and OpenAI. Why can they partner while Google and Anthropic can't? It is strange to penalize a non-monopoly partnership like this.

whatever1 2y ago
Because realistically only open ai / Microsoft stand a chance to compete with Google search / ad stack
stg22 2y ago
The two companies are not the same; their dominant positions are in different markets which means the anti-trust implications of them extending into a specific market have to be judged separately. As an extreme example, Oracle had a dominant position in the enterprise database market in the late '90s, but it wouldn't have been an abuse of that position if they'd integrated a web browser into Oracle 8.
- anakaine 2y ago
  I disagree somewhat regarding markets, segmentation, and offering. Both have a Web search function as a headline offering. Both have ad enabled platforms. Both are integrating their AI into office and productivity platforms. Both are running integration APIs for their LLMs. Both are actively engaged in research. Both are large market players. Breaking one will absolutely give the other an unfair advantage and entrench a market leader, which is against the principles of antitrust.
- waffletower 2y ago
  I can use Anthropic, Gemini, and OpenAI interchangeably (and actually keep the three open as tabs in the same window). This argument doesn't make sense. Monopoly relief should be applied only to monopolistic products, and not strengthen someone else's monopoly.

chucke1992 2y ago

I think with Trump's administration Google will have a tough time.

xvector 2y ago
Is it bad that I want Google to totally collapse all the internet infrastructure that relies on them if they lose this case? Sick of people treating the only companies really pushing tech forward like a piñata.

dismalaf 2y ago

It really feels like they've got some weird vendetta against Google and are just trying to kill it. Which really sucks because Google is the only big tech company that I haven't had negative interactions with. Using Apple and MS products feels like constant friction to try "force" me into their ecosystem. Whereas with Google you can just use a product, have it work with any device, any OS, across devices and you're never forced into anything else. The DOJ also seems to be going way beyond their mandate in saying Google monopolizes search and ads. If the Microsoft precedent is anything to go by, just require Android users to choose a browser and search engine, allow other ad companies to bid on showing ads on search results or something, that seems fair. But forcing them to sell Chrome, open proprietary algorithms to competitors and divest from business parnerships is way over the top and really, really feels like the government is doing a favour to Microsoft and Apple. Maybe Google didn't cooperate enough on something classified?

__loam 2y ago
Search is an essential utility used by basically everyone on the planet with an internet connection. Google has a lock on 96% of that traffic and has increasingly made business decisions with respect to search that hurt the quality of the results and hurt both consumers and the people who get indexed by search. Google can unilaterally destroy your business with small opaque algorithm tweaks. They also increasingly have a monopoly on the browser, making decisions like deprecating support for ad blocking because it hurts the business. Google makes about 16-22 billion dollars a quarter in profit but they still do layoffs and they still make decisions that harm consumers but help their own short term growth. Search is a basic utility that is essential to the function of the internet. It's like water and electricity. There are huge structural barriers to being able to compete in that market, so if we care at all about basic economic theory, Google probably ought to at least be operated as a non-profit, and realistically be subject to massive anti-trust enforcement considering they are the modern robber barons on top of our communication networks.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  There's search engines other than Google and there's very, very minimal barriers to using a different search engine; literally just type in Bing.com instead of Google.com. Hell, if you're on MS Windows which has a similar monopoly on desktop devices, Bing will be shoved in your face over, over and over again and using Google actually requires more effort...