Just because Americans love Google doesn't make it a monopoly. Biden lawsuit goes too far.
Just because Americans love Google doesn't make it a monopoly. Biden lawsuit goes too far.
DOJ's antitrust lawsuit rests on the paternalistic theory that Google's search dominance must be bad – even though consumers overwhelmingly prefer it.
What type of google shill wrote this
The one who got paid. No way this isn’t some type of shill, any somewhat literate tech person knows Google has monopolized and now with WEI they need to be knocked down. I worked on the GCP team for 5 years before leaving and I’ll never stop being anti-google
PR firm orchastered shit post
She got voted out of her political position because she was too conservative for her district, now she’s an official shill.
"love"
jfc it's a soulless faceless megacorp. This shit must have been published right out of Minitrue.
Google has had monopoly power over both search and online ads for well over a decade, it's way past time
The article’s whole argument sounds like one of the weakest and most common corporate speak nonsense arguments that come up whenever there is a monopoly. It’s almost an admission of being a monopoly.
That said, the “browsers providing Google search by default money” is probably the economic reason why we still have a Firefox web browser (the only real, fully functioning alternative to the webkit/blink browsers like Chrome). For a long time, it was a significant source of their income.
Also, the alternatives to Google search need to step up their game. As a tech worker, Bing sucks for results. Yahoo does too since it gets results from Bing. DuckDuckGo isn’t bad. Anyone know better alternatives?
Ecosia is also decent, respects privacy, and uses proceeds to plant trees
Never heard of that. I will try it.
DuckDuckGo uses Bing as well, so I'm not sure why it's better for you than Yahoo or bing.com. I personally am fine using DDG, as it provides the results I'm looking for and doesn't track me for asking.
According to Wikipedia:
DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources according to itself, including Bing, Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Yandex, and its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot); but none from Google.
That explains why the results are better than Bing for me.
That is the definition of a monopoly. The real question for the courts is if they are using that power in an anti-competitive way.
It's the definition of anti-competitive practices; not of a monopoly. They aren't the only search engine to exist. They don't have exclusive control of the market. That's why they resort to anti-competitive practices in the first place.
Not saying your reply is wrong, but the FTC does define monopolistic practices differently for the purposes of antitrust cases.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
Should be labeled as opinion piece, just to make it even more obvious.
No - being a monopoly makes it a monopoly...
I didn't read this opinion piece and jumped straight to the bottom to see who wrote it. I wasn't surprised:
Barbara Comstock is a former congresswoman and delegate from Virginia and a senior adviser at Baker Donelson. She also was a senior Justice Department official during the Bush administration.
"We don't have a monopoly! Just Google it!"
A government is supposed to be paternalistic. Why have a government if it isn't?
The DOJ’s theory here is thus far different from the antitrust lawsuit it brought two decades ago against Microsoft. In that case, the government argued that Microsoft violated antitrust laws by categorically prohibiting internet providers from promoting (or even in some cases permitting) alternative browsers besides its own.
This rather glaring error casts doubt on the author's basic understanding of technical subjects.