Comment by 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.
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.
"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.
There is no contract, except in your head. The internet doesn't have to be independent just because you want it it to be.
> There is no contract, except in your head.
I... what? Today I learned that the Federal Trade Commission is a figment of my imagination.
I'm sorry, your argument has devolved to the point where you're now saying that Chrome privileging Google sites isn't anticompetitive behavior because antitrust isn't a natural law? I can't believe I have to say this, but that's not the standard that the FTC or courts use.
5 replies →