Google is not a book not even a section, they are the library. If i want to research something right now i'm using google just like 95% of all Americans. If google opaquely decided to defund zerohedge advertisement, which will most likely lead to that sites revenue drying up, is google just a book or are they the librarian that threw zerohedge in a dusty corner put a 'under maintenance' sign and turned off the light?

You are an idiot if you are researching 95% of your info from Google.

I'm in grad school and there's plenty of paid research engines i have access too which i can use for serious research, but how much of that is what i search for on daily basis?

Do you use library databases to search for news? You're delusional if you think the overwhelming majority of Americans use some databases for regular search lmao.

but their monopoly cant be legally broken up if alternatives are readily available. the fact the 95% of americans use only google doesnt equate to CAN ONLY use google. other sources of search engines exist, they just aren't used. monopoly laws have to do with barriers to entry, i.e. patents, strongarm behavior, etc. which may or may not rise to the level congress can do anything, let alone if they should bother.

Burden is on the person to source credible information. Those JSTOR databases and other public domain or public subsidized research SHOULD be publicly available and searchable free.

Google's private search results are theirs and private. Let the free market work it's magic, if they censor, user base with shift a bit.

I don't think that's how monopoly legislation works in real life. Much of the time the top industry leaders may not be allowed to merge not because they will represent all 100% of that industry but because doing so will be viewed as anti competitive.

If the top 2-3 airlines decide to merge today, that's absolutely getting struck down with anti monopoly regulations even though those 3 airlines don't account for 100% of air travel and people can still choose number 4,5,6 to fly on.



To what? Duckduckgo?

There's not much left to shift to, they've injected themselves so deep that their company name is synonymous with searching.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 17 2020 10:57am

but its just more reason to update the monopoly laws to get with the times. If entities control 95% of the market and control public speech and news to such a degree they are able to wield nearly total control over what people are allowed to say, then "you can start up your own site with your own server and own DNS" in the era of deplatforming is nothing more than a quibble when the practical effect is the same as an exploitative monopoly. The spirit of the first amendment is to protect free speech, not to allow technicalities to be exploited to exercise near-total censorship over speech and control the public square.

anti competition is indeed the threshold. having a large % of the market share is a factor, having a monopoly on relevant patents is another, any other large barriers to entry caused by the monopolistic company is another, etc. % of market share is just the smell test, easiest factor to track.

so lets say you're potus, have a scotus in pocket, and even both branches of the legislature. full auto, no stopping you. how do you legislate the monopoly of facebook, or twitter. bullet points plz. not being sarcastic.

don't like facebook, move to instagram. dont like that, move to twitter, a whole different company not at all owned by the same people. get banned from twitter, "but my IP". get a fucking vpn karen, its 2020.

the whole Muh Speech argument is a bit silly. you're not a 1m followers blue check. move on, start over, or go outside. breathe some fresh air. dont waste millions or even billions of tax money over the next 20 years cutting heads off of hydras while the social media conglomerates rise and out maneuver you. thats dumb, you'll just be blizzard chasing bots.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 17 2020 11:04am