← Back to context

Comment by danShumway

6 months ago

"It doesn't matter what the market effect was, only that Google engineers meant well" is certainly an argument, but it both contradicts the question you originally asked (are customers better off), and also (to be blunt) is a really heckin bad argument.

I'm just kind of blown away by the rapid shift from "this helped consumers", to "actually, no, the effect was minimal", to "actually, it doesn't matter if anybody was harmed, the result is immaterial." :)

9 comments

danShumway

Reply
danielmarkbruce  6 months ago

tried to help, effect was minimal, motivation matters.

It's not that complicated. No need to be blown away. Most cases around competition law are significantly more complex.

  • danShumway  6 months ago

    "Google should not use a near-monopoly position in the browser to privilege it's own sites and services" is a very simple standard, and this really is not a complex case.

    It only becomes complicated if you start trying to rephrase a simple principle as: "Google shouldn't privilege their sites unless they mean well, and then the result is immaterial, but no wait actually I didn't mean immaterial, I meant minimal, and anyway it's not like Zoom isn't still popular so-"

    Or... Google could also just not ship invisible extensions as part of Chromium's build process that privilege Google-owned services with extra API access in direct contradiction to the principles of an independent Internet. Because the effect of casually breaking that contract isn't minimal. It does actually matter that the web be a neutral platform. If businesses expect that Google can get away with privileging Google platforms in the core browser, that perception and allowance of interference degrades the entire Internet as a commercial platform - and of course emboldens Google to go even further in the future.