5 ms·

> It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge m

by minot 12y ago

> It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers. > but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have. I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? > Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will. Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? What is it that they can do ten years from now that they can't already do? You don't think their market share could get any larger, do you?

SCHiM 12y ago
>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here). I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful: I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such. So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in. Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence: >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]? Yes, they grew to big.
- Fando 12y ago
  Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest? Absurd. Reasoning like a doomsday prophet is silly. So is jumping to solutions without understanding the problem. The problem is potential for abuse of power. But, so far no indications of such behavior were found, indeed the opposite is true, Google is quite respectable. Accusing them with this in mind seems malicious and raises the real question - why would someone do that? The reason of course is that Google quality is hard to complete with which prompts many shady parties to resort dirty tactics. This isn't about equality for all, it's about reducing Google's competitive advantage. Coca cola is the most valuable brand, and it's nearly impossible for new beverage companies to complete. Surely you would not think that restricting coke's areas of operation, breaking it up, or making it reveal its secret recipe is justifiable. Yet, this is precisely what France is advocating.
  - SCHiM 12y ago
    >Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest Not the internet, the whole western world would be closer. I don't know anyone who uses the internet and doesn't use a search engine. And the very large majority use google. Like I said, it's really how you approach the issue, even determining if there's an issue in the first place. To me it's not about the company, they come and go. It's about the people, the structures the social aspects of it. No matter if it's Google, Apple or Coca Cola. They're just names and I think people should feel no great sense of loyalty to a company aren't working for or who's ideals they don't believe in. >This isn't about equality for all You're right, but you must have missed something. Because, indeed, I don't advocate equality too/for companies and especially not for Google (search). Comprehend for a moment the huge influence a subtle change in search results _could_ have. I don't want that power/chance to lay in the hands of stockholders and/or founders, until such a time that google's usage is down or google is better regulated. Because I feel that they are barely regulated right now. They appear to be able to do whatever they want with their search results. I don't say we should steal google, but they should be prohibited to manipulate current events for example. Also the reason I'm not too concerned about Coca cola is because there's already rigorous testing and regulation for the foods that you can sell. Furthermore I don't care about which soda is the most popular, I really, _really_ couldn't care less. I _do_ care about what the most popular search engine is. Because, and it's been said before, the person who controls education controls the future. And Google undeniably has a share in the metaphorical control pie.
learc83 12y ago
>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? It doesn't matter if they did something illegal. Under the interstate commerce act the Federal Government most definitely has the constitutional authority to regulate internet search if they choose to. The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. The FCC didn't accuse those companies of acting illegally. >Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? To make more money. If they think they can get away with it, of course they will abuse their monopoly. Show me a monopoly that hasn't done this. >I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers. Their isn't a magical market share that allows anticompetiveness. The key is to look at the potential harm that Google's monopoly allows. As a society we do it all the time. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but we still regulate weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is so great.
- currysausage 12y ago
  > The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. ISPs are natural monopolies. Duplicating the subscriber line network would (usually) be economically inefficient and pointless. "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (...) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively." (Wikipedia) This is not at all the case with search engines. Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That's how Google once overtook Yahoo, Ask, etc.
  - learc83 12y ago
    I know what a natural monopoly is and I'm not arguing that Google search is a natural monopoly. Government regulation is not aimed only at natural monopolies. The authority for the government to regulate interstate commerce isn't based on whether a natural monopoly exists or not. There are natural monopolies that aren't strictly regulated. And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated. The key is to examine the potential harm and the desired outcomes. >Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That is entirely possible (or it might not be [1]). It doesn't change the fact that right now and for the foreseeable future, Google is the gatekeeper to the internet. Right now Google directly controls the destiny of millions of people. One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies. [1]Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.

by minot 12y ago

SCHiM 12y ago

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here). I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful: I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such. So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in. Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence: >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]? Yes, they grew to big.

Fando 12y ago
Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest? Absurd. Reasoning like a doomsday prophet is silly. So is jumping to solutions without understanding the problem. The problem is potential for abuse of power. But, so far no indications of such behavior were found, indeed the opposite is true, Google is quite respectable. Accusing them with this in mind seems malicious and raises the real question - why would someone do that? The reason of course is that Google quality is hard to complete with which prompts many shady parties to resort dirty tactics. This isn't about equality for all, it's about reducing Google's competitive advantage. Coca cola is the most valuable brand, and it's nearly impossible for new beverage companies to complete. Surely you would not think that restricting coke's areas of operation, breaking it up, or making it reveal its secret recipe is justifiable. Yet, this is precisely what France is advocating.
- SCHiM 12y ago
  >Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest Not the internet, the whole western world would be closer. I don't know anyone who uses the internet and doesn't use a search engine. And the very large majority use google. Like I said, it's really how you approach the issue, even determining if there's an issue in the first place. To me it's not about the company, they come and go. It's about the people, the structures the social aspects of it. No matter if it's Google, Apple or Coca Cola. They're just names and I think people should feel no great sense of loyalty to a company aren't working for or who's ideals they don't believe in. >This isn't about equality for all You're right, but you must have missed something. Because, indeed, I don't advocate equality too/for companies and especially not for Google (search). Comprehend for a moment the huge influence a subtle change in search results _could_ have. I don't want that power/chance to lay in the hands of stockholders and/or founders, until such a time that google's usage is down or google is better regulated. Because I feel that they are barely regulated right now. They appear to be able to do whatever they want with their search results. I don't say we should steal google, but they should be prohibited to manipulate current events for example. Also the reason I'm not too concerned about Coca cola is because there's already rigorous testing and regulation for the foods that you can sell. Furthermore I don't care about which soda is the most popular, I really, _really_ couldn't care less. I _do_ care about what the most popular search engine is. Because, and it's been said before, the person who controls education controls the future. And Google undeniably has a share in the metaphorical control pie.

learc83 12y ago

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? It doesn't matter if they did something illegal. Under the interstate commerce act the Federal Government most definitely has the constitutional authority to regulate internet search if they choose to. The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. The FCC didn't accuse those companies of acting illegally. >Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? To make more money. If they think they can get away with it, of course they will abuse their monopoly. Show me a monopoly that hasn't done this. >I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers. Their isn't a magical market share that allows anticompetiveness. The key is to look at the potential harm that Google's monopoly allows. As a society we do it all the time. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but we still regulate weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is so great.

currysausage 12y ago
> The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. ISPs are natural monopolies. Duplicating the subscriber line network would (usually) be economically inefficient and pointless. "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (...) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively." (Wikipedia) This is not at all the case with search engines. Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That's how Google once overtook Yahoo, Ask, etc.
- learc83 12y ago
  I know what a natural monopoly is and I'm not arguing that Google search is a natural monopoly. Government regulation is not aimed only at natural monopolies. The authority for the government to regulate interstate commerce isn't based on whether a natural monopoly exists or not. There are natural monopolies that aren't strictly regulated. And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated. The key is to examine the potential harm and the desired outcomes. >Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That is entirely possible (or it might not be [1]). It doesn't change the fact that right now and for the foreseeable future, Google is the gatekeeper to the internet. Right now Google directly controls the destiny of millions of people. One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies. [1]Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.