Time to break up Google (Alphabet)

[Yojimbo]

The EU is already on the path to ending Google’s anti-trust practices. Wish our government had the balls to start breaking up monopolies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Walmart, Comcast, etc, etc.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/googles-threat-democracy-hits-alternet-hard/

Here’s a link to the EU antitrust fine:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Google-outlines-concessions-to-EU-after-record-12234698.php

[Benton]

Hmmm. I never viewed Google (or Walmart or Amazon) as monopolies.

[Yojimbo]

(09-29-2017, 03:34 PM)Benton Wrote: Hmmm. I never viewed Google (or Walmart or Amazon) as monopolies.

$1 out of every $2 spent online goes to Amazon. One company getting 50% of all e-commerce has got to trip some anti-trust law. And now they are getting into the supermarket business.

65% of all web searches go through Google. Alphabet has been buying up companies for years for phones, cars, internet infrastructure, etc.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-29-2017, 03:39 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: $1 out of every $2 spent online goes to Amazon. One company getting 50% of all e-commerce has got to trip some anti-trust law. And now they are getting into the supermarket business.

65% of all web searches go through Google. Alphabet has been buying up companies for years for phones, cars, internet infrastructure, etc.

Just because one company is big and good at what they do doesn't mean they're a monopoly.

There ARE other options out there, most people just choose not to use them because they don't provide as good of services or as good of prices.

Quote:mo·nop·o·ly

NOUN

1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service: 

None of those companies you listed have exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade. There's nothing stopping others from trying to overtake them. Heck, back in the day according to your definition MySpace was a monopoly on social media... until Facebook took over. Vine was a huge part of the online video, until it died when Instagram took over.

Forcing people to use crappier options that are available but they've chosen not to use is not a good idea, nor do I think the government has any business getting involved in. Get back to me when they literally have a monopoly, like how a huge portion of our country only has one energy choice, or one internet choice.

[Yojimbo]

(09-29-2017, 03:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just because one company is big and good at what they do doesn't mean they're a monopoly.

There ARE other options out there, most people just choose not to use them because they don't provide as good of services or as good of prices.


None of those companies you listed have exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade. There's nothing stopping others from trying to overtake them. Heck, back in the day according to your definition MySpace was a monopoly on social media... until Facebook took over. Vine was a huge part of the online video, until it died when Instagram took over.

Forcing people to use crappier options that are available but they've chosen not to use is not a good idea, nor do I think the government has any business getting involved in. Get back to me when they literally have a monopoly, like how a huge portion of our country only has one energy choice, or one internet choice.

That’s the definition of monopoly, not what the law says. The law applies to companies that are so large they have too much control over market pricing. I provided two links to two instances where Google was using their market share to influence the market.

[Benton]

(09-29-2017, 03:39 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: $1 out of every $2 spent online goes to Amazon. One company getting 50% of all e-commerce has got to trip some anti-trust law. And now they are getting into the supermarket business.

65% of all web searches go through Google. Alphabet has been buying up companies for years for phones, cars, internet infrastructure, etc.

Not mine. I hate Amazon. I used to use it, but now I can't tell who is selling what. And in three orders with an Amazon certified seller (or whatever they call it), all three ended up with a long-awaited refund because the products either didn't get delivered or weren't what I ordered.

(09-29-2017, 04:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That’s the definition of monopoly, not what the law says. The law applies to companies that are so large they have too much control over market pricing. I provided two links to two instances where Google was using their market share to influence the market.

From the second link:

Quote:The overhaul came after Google was hit by a record antitrust fine of $2.8 billion over the summer for unfairly favoring its own service over those of its rivals. The penalty, in one of the company’s most important markets, highlights the risks facing Google as it looks to protect its dominant position in online search in Europe and other parts of the world.

To me, that's mind boggling.

They have a business, but they're supposed to favor someone else's business because theirs is too successful?

And I guess that's my issue. I don't use Amazon, and I hate Walmart. But I don't fault either one of them for having successful business models. People like them, so people use them. And I don't know how you can call either a monopoly when those two companies are battling each other.

[Yojimbo]

(09-29-2017, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Not mine. I hate Amazon. I used to use it, but now I can't tell who is selling what. And in three orders with an Amazon certified seller (or whatever they call it), all three ended up with a long-awaited refund because the products either didn't get delivered or weren't what I ordered.


From the second link:

To me, that's mind boggling.

They have a business, but they're supposed to favor someone else's business because theirs is too successful?

And I guess that's my issue. I don't use Amazon, and I hate Walmart. But I don't fault either one of them for having successful business models. People like them, so people use them. And I don't know how you can call either a monopoly when those two companies are battling each other.

Under EU laws they are supposed to remain neutral on shopping searches, not favor their own or their competitors.

“We’re giving comparison shopping services the same opportunity to show shopping ads from merchants on Google’s search results pages as we give to Google Shopping,” Al Verney, a spokesman for Google in Brussels, said.”

“Along with other investigations into Google, the commission has also opened inquiries into tax avoidance, data privacy and abuse of market position, affecting big-name companies including Amazon, Apple and Facebook.”

[Au165]

I don't actually see any of the OP's examples as monopolies. Specifically they haven't attempted predatory practices as defined by the U.S. to meet the litmus test to be regulated as a monopoly. If you look at the Microsoft case from the 90's you will see kind of what goes into reaching a monopoly status in the tech sector. A sector dominated by innovation is tough because innovation in itself can give off a monopolistic feel, but that is why there is more to it than simply having a large market share.

Keep in mind that the EU laws have always been different and do tend to sway more towards breaking things up.

[Yojimbo]

(09-29-2017, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: I don't actually see any of the OP's examples as monopolies. Specifically they haven't attempted predatory practices as defined by the U.S. to meet the litmus test to be regulated as a monopoly. If you look at the Microsoft case from the 90's you will see kind of what goes into reaching a monopoly status in the tech sector. A sector dominated by innovation is tough because innovation in itself can give off a monopolistic feel, but that is why there is more to it than simply having a large market share.

Keep in mind that the EU laws have always been different and do tend to sway more towards breaking things up.

U.S. laws used to break things up too, until our Supreme Court ruled money equals free speech and all of our government officials started taking legal bribes.

I think Google using their algorithm to decide what’s real news, in their opinion, is a predatory practice. Their algorithm should be as neutral as possible.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-29-2017, 05:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: U.S. laws used to break things up too, until our Supreme Court ruled money equals free speech and all of our government officials started taking legal bribes.

I think Google using their algorithm to decide what’s real news, in their opinion, is a predatory practice. Their algorithm should be as neutral as possible.

Use any one of the billion other search engines, man. I hated how Google started tying everything together with social media and a single Google account, messing with my search results, and hitting me with ads for everything I searched for like some creepy stalker... so I stopped using it.

It wasn't even really hard to do. I would suggest DuckDuckGo, which won't track and sell your browsing data. Bing's not terrible, but not great.

[Benton]

(09-29-2017, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: I don't actually see any of the OP's examples as monopolies. Specifically they haven't attempted predatory practices as defined by the U.S. to meet the litmus test to be regulated as a monopoly. If you look at the Microsoft case from the 90's you will see kind of what goes into reaching a monopoly status in the tech sector. A sector dominated by innovation is tough because innovation in itself can give off a monopolistic feel, but that is why there is more to it than simply having a large market share.

Keep in mind that the EU laws have always been different and do tend to sway more towards breaking things up.

Under US law, I don't think they are, but I think Yojimbo is referring more to EU's interpretation of monopolies.

(09-29-2017, 05:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: U.S. laws used to break things up too, until our Supreme Court ruled money equals free speech and all of our government officials started taking legal bribes.

I think Google using their algorithm to decide what’s real news, in their opinion, is a predatory practice. Their algorithm should be as neutral as possible.

They used to break up businesses that absorbed other businesses to prevent competition, or used their position to manipulate markets (which, arguably, Walmart does that). But the EU's approach is more about trying to make businesses be more or less competitive.

[Yojimbo]

(09-29-2017, 05:29 PM)Benton Wrote: Under US law, I don't think they are, but I think Yojimbo is referring more to EU's interpretation of monopolies.


They used to break up businesses that absorbed other businesses to prevent competition, or used their position to manipulate markets (which, arguably, Walmart does that). But the EU's approach is more about trying to make businesses be more or less competitive.

I’m not sure competitive is the right term. I think they are trying for equitable.

[StLucieBengal]

Do not break up anyone. Drop the regulations and look for more competition