Comment by specialist
5 years ago
1- Ban self dealing.
Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be treated as an actual conflict of interest.
Among all the other countermeasures being considering, breaking apart these monopoly's end-to-end integrations should be top priority.
For comparison: I'm a huge Apple fan boy. I'm in a happy monogamist relationship with Apple (h/t NYU Prof Scott Galloway).
There's no question their awesome products are largely due to their keiretsu, monopsony, and other anti-competitive practices. So despite my own joy, I also support breaking up Apple, for the greater good.
The same applies to Google's offerings. Google Chrome cannot be allowed to operate without oversight. Once a product or service becomes an important pillar in a market, it must be held accountable.
2- Fair and impartial courts.
Governments make markets. Google (et al) act as sovereign governments running their private markets. This is unacceptable.
We all must have the right to negotiate contracts, appeal decisions, and other misc tort. To be adjudicated in an open, fair, impartial courts overseen by professional and accountable judges.
In other words, I demand the rule of law.
Again using Apple as my example. As a customer, I benefit hugely from Apple's App Store, where they vet and curate entries. This is awesome.
But Apple must be held accountable for all of their decisions. All participants must have the right to sue for damages. In a fair and impartial court system, independent of Apple's total control over the market.
Similarly, however Google is administrating the Safe Browsing infrastructure, it must be transparent, accountable, auditable.
--
I'm still working on this messaging, phrasing. Criticisms, editing, word smithing much appreciated.
> Criticisms, editing, word smithing much appreciated.
My loose thoughts, feel free to use. (Reordered 2 before 1.)
2. In any bigg-ish privately regulated market, the membership needs to be based on public, objective rules and under a real jurisdiction. If you paid and obeyed the regulations and have been banned/mistreated, you can sue.
1. For any market, if a company (Google or other) has a clear majority of it, they have additional responsibilities.
"Customer is free to go away to our competitors" does not tell a full story (illustrated by OP). The cost to switch is the real deal here.
Must be held accountable -> must be operated autonomously from the rest of the business
Yes. I'd like this better explained. Those "Chinese firewalls" meant to keep biz units apart always seem to be completely fictional. Ditto "self policing".