3 ms·
It's interesting that for years people have been hammering them about being a monopoly and looking for angles to try and get the DOJ to go after them. While it
by at-fates-hands 11y ago
It's interesting that for years people have been hammering them about being a monopoly and looking for angles to try and get the DOJ to go after them.
While it's clear they're giving preference to their own content, it's a shaky argument since I know I can go to multiple other search engines and compare results.
You have a harder time convincing me as well since this is not like the Walmart in BFE North Dakota where people have to drive an hour before they can find another competitor - it's the internet. A few clicks here, a few clicks there, and you have plenty of other options.
Sorry, but you can't call it a monopoly if people are just too lazy to find another search engine to compare results with.
- jdmichal 11y agoPeople really need to understand that antitrust and monopoly do not mean the same thing. The existence of a competitor does not automatically make antitrust behavior OK. The main focus of antitrust law is how an action effects consumers; effects on competitors are only interesting in the sense of effecting consumers. (With the understanding that more competition generally means more choices for consumers, which is held as a Good Thing™.) I would suggest giving the Wikipedia antitrust article a good read, as a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law