Google

The Republican Antitrust Suit Against Google Is a Progressive Dream

The government is going after Google not to stop consumer harm but to level the business playing field.

|

Google is being sued by 11 states and the federal government, who claim the tech company "is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet." Google maintains this monopoly "through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices" in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, they allege.

To reach this conclusion, the complaint—filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—employs a loose conception of monopoly and barely bothers trying to offer a theory of consumer harm. The complaint's big beef with Google is basically that it's big, as well as useful, stubbornly popular, and extremely profitable.

Google is "one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, with a market value of $1 trillion and annual revenue exceeding $160 billion," the government notes in the suit's second paragraph.

For search users, Google algorithms "deliver more relevant results, particularly on 'fresh' queries (queries seeking recent information), location-based queries (queries asking about something in the searcher's vicinity), and 'long-tail' queries (queries used infrequently)," it says. And "few general search text advertisers would find alternative sources [to Google] a suitable substitute."

The lawsuit against Google does not accuse it of conspiring with its competitors or of acting unilaterally to block new entrants into the market. Nor does it cite common political gripes about Google, such as the idea that it's working too many different hustles and needs to be "broken up," or the claim that Google search and YouTube are ideologically biased.

Rather, it accuses Google of unfairly dominating the U.S. markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising, mainly through distribution deals that give Google apps or search preset default status on some browsers and mobile devices.

To win its suit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) "will need to show that Google is dominant in the market, abusing the power associated with that dominance, and harms consumers," notes the American Action Forum's Jennifer Huddleston.

Antitrust experts say the government's case isn't great. "U.S. v. Google has a long, long way to go," said Anthony M. Sabino, a professor at St. John's University, in a statement. "This case won't be easy for the government," said Willaim Rinehart, senior research fellow at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University.

"They know they have an uphill battle," said the Mercatus Center's Brent Skorup. "Most of Google's services are offered for free to consumers, so authorities will need compelling evidence of anticompetitive agreements or harm to consumers."

These default deals are the primary mechanism by which the suit claims Google acted unlawfully and harmed consumers. Yes, all of this hoopla is over the fact that Google—mostly through a combination of leasing its Android operating system to third-party phone manufacturers and paying Apple and others to put Google as the default search option on browsers—comes as an easily changeable default option on many browsers and mobile phones.

For this very ephemeral status it "pays billions of dollars each year to distributors," including Apple, LG, Motorola, and Samsung, says the lawsuit.

The government calls these arrangements "exclusionary," saying Google "owns and controls" search access at these points, which make up "roughly 80 percent of the general search queries in the United States." But no one is obligated to keep these default applications or search settings (in fact, Google's own app store offers alternatives). Google only "owns and controls" these distribution points until consumers get their hands on the phone.

That's one of many times the complaint bandies about muddled statistics to make it sound like Google is more powerful than it is. At another point, the lawsuit states that "for mobile browsers, Google is the default search provider for both Apple Safari (approximately 55 percent share) and Google Chrome (over 35 percent share), which together account for over 90 percent of the browser usage on mobile devices in the United States." But—again—being set as the default doesn't mean people continue to use it, and besides, there are many ways to search that don't involve a mobile phone web browser.

The evidence "suggests that Google has become the default through a product most people prefer, not by anti-competitive behavior," writes Huddleston. "Additionally, a growing number of product searches now start on Amazon, not Google. .. In many cases, consumers already have easily accessible alternatives and a growing number of innovative choices."

Nonetheless, the government argues that it's default status deals—not what it acknowledges is Google's greater scale, greater name recognition, and more relevant results—that make it popular. And they say this popularity itself presents Google with an unfair advantage over competitors since it makes Google a more attractive option for advertisers and phone providers than competitors like Yahoo, Bing, or DuckDuckGo.

The government claims "countless advertisers must pay a toll " because of Google's alleged monopoly, and accuses Google of unfairly maintaining this edge through such nefarious tactics as being high quality. "Google discovered that it could increase the number of clicks—and its own profits—by ranking ads to promote those with greater relevance," the government complains. "To help determine placement of ads, Google uses a 'quality score.'"

It's hard to see how either consumers or advertisers would benefit—or change their ways—just because Google apps didn't come preloaded on some phones or as the default search in some browsers. Presumably, Google wouldn't magically lose its huge name recognition and Bing or Yahoo wouldn't suddenly have better results. The government can meddle around the market's edges all it wants, but they can't force consumers to choose inferior products just to equalize market share.

"The complaint makes a lot of hay out of Google's deal with Apple to be the default search engine on Safari," and "of course, being the default helps increase market share," tweeted Alec Stapp, director of technology policy at the Progressive Policy Institute. "But Tim Cook has also said that Google is the best search engine. Should the default be an inferior product?"

"It will be a heavy lift for the DOJ to show real consumer harm," said Jessica Melugin, associate director of Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That this bar is unlikely to be met is precisely why so many antitrust enthusiasts are calling for a fundamental rewriting and expansion of U.S. antitrust laws. Those proposed changes sacrifice the primacy of consumer welfare and insert competitors and broader socio-economic goals in its place."

This has been a progressive goal for a while. After a "liberalization trend" that saw consumer welfare emerge as the main goal of antitrust law enforcement, "it's being tugged back to form a support system protecting 'competitors'—guarding against low prices, escalating quality, and market rivalry," explained Thomas W. Hazlett for Reason last year.

One of this movement's biggest proponents has been Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). "America has a long tradition of breaking up companies when they have become too big and dominant—even if they are generally providing good service at a reasonable price," Warren wrote in 2019, citing Gilded Age forebears as a guide for how to "restore competition to the tech sector" and promising to use antitrust law against Google and Amazon.

The new lawsuit against Google also echoes the ethos of an early October report from the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. The American Prospect's David Dayen suggested the report uses "tech as simply a case study on what an invigorated legislative body can do to rein in the corporate power of any type."

Oddly enough, Republicans are celebrating these moves.

"I applaud this suit as desperately needed and long overdue," tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) this week. "Google is a monopoly and I think they have been abusing their monopoly power," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) on CNBC.

The 11 states joining in the Google lawsuit are all states with Republican attorneys general.

But the Google antitrust suit is a profoundly anti-free market document, wholly in line with modern progressive and leftist conceptions of heavier government intervention in today's marketplace. Ultimately, the government is going after Google for being bigger and more capable than others, not to stop some consumer harm, but to try and level the playing field.

NEXT: A New Study Estimates That COVID-19 Is Responsible for 2.5 Million Years of Life Lost in the U.S.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The problem isn’t that we got the true, unedited by CBS’s producers and filters, but that he broke the NDA with a news organization.

    Then, on Thursday morning, after he again teased a release of the video (“the vicious attempted ‘takeout” interview of me”), a 37-minute-clip of the interview appeared on the president’s Facebook page.

    In posting the interview, Trump and the White House violated an agreement with CBS News that the White House was taping the interview “for archival purposes only,” said a network source with knowledge of the interview.

    Media: Transparency! Transparency!

    Us: Agreed, can we take a peek inside?

    Media: No, we deserve an unbending right to privacy!

    1. Ironically, I think its the accountants at CBS who are more pissed about this than the ideologues. It kills the value of an interview if get scooped by the interviewed.

      That said, in a sane world the penny pinchers would be having a long conversation with the interviewers about not pissing off your golden goose so bad they sell their eggs elsewhere.

      1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time. Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page..HERE……… Home Profit System

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here

          1. MAGA 2020!!!
            Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

            what I do………work92/7 online

    2. This is the same Trump admin that is using Justice Department lawyers to sue Melania’s friend for violating a private NDA.

      1. Lol he Trumped your idoot asses again and you hate it loololol

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Anx Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here Many Dollars

        2. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting jobb now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

          Follow Instructions Here……. Home Profit System

      2. Hey look the troll DOL is shilling for less transparency again.

        1. Shilling against fraud, waste, and abuse.

          1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. aCV Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…….. Visit Here

      3. Hey retard….

        https://news.yahoo.com/dojs-move-defend-trump-defamation-165249333.html

        A federal law known as the Westfall Act, gives federal employees “absolute immunity” from lawsuits like these based on conduct “in the course of their official duties.”

        Congress has had the doj defend against defamation many times.

        1. Oh, “First Lady” is a federal job now? And defending against a lawsuit is the same as initiating one?

          Retard.

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

    4. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from ask this without having online working skills. This is what I do….Visit Here

    5. It would have been smarter if he’d waited for an edited interview to come out, then release the full footage. But Trump was never very tactical…

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/hr. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do… WORK24HERE

  2. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click For Full Detail.

  3. “The government is going after Google not to stop consumer harm but to level the business playing field.”

    Level the playing field of campaign donations, that is! Bill Gates and Microsoft learned that the hard way! Start to “play nicely with others in Washington DC” ( = make more bribes, ooops, I mean, more campaign donations, to the RIGHT people) and the charges will go away!

  4. Google has been pandering to the Left so hard these past few years that few think defending them is worth it. With what happened with the Federalist’s comment section, the government’s argument that Google has effective monopoly control of internet advertising is not exactly wrong.

    1. And Google’s use of that control is not sympathetic.

      1. Precisely.

        There is zero doubt that Google has a monopoly on internet advertising. They also abuse that position to implement structural barriers to prevent competitors from entering the market.

        They also take advantage of that position to restrict speech they don’t like and promote speech they do like. It IS their private property of course, but it highlights the issue with them having a structurally protected monopoly.

        ENB is full of shit …. as usual. It is going to be necessary to break Google up.

        1. Who defines what is use versus abuse of a market dominant position?

          For most new companies trying to enter the marketplace, if they can’t compete on quality they have to compete on price. Using Google for searches is free, so there’s no way to compete on price, and it’s a pretty good search engine so competitors – even very rich companies like Microsoft – have been fairly unsuccessful. You call that “structural barriers”, I call it the laws of economics.

          Wanting the government to dismantle a successful company because you don’t like their politics or their ability to rise above the competitor companies is profoundly unlibertarian.

  5. For search users, Google algorithms “deliver more relevant results, particularly on ‘fresh’ queries (queries seeking recent information), location-based queries (queries asking about something in the searcher’s vicinity), and ‘long-tail’ queries (queries used infrequently),” it says. And “few general search text advertisers would find alternative sources [to Google] a suitable substitute.”

    Is this is right really because i m trying to make our blog fresh and relevent but not found results like others.

    1. Ironically, I’ve actually found Bing a lot more useful when trying to find things that not a lot of people search for. I’m training several people at work on how to do part research, and most have converted search engines because they got tired of me finding things they’d been looking for thirty minutes on in 20 seconds.

      1. I have to use site:domain all the time on Google to get non biased results at times, even when googling for direct headlines I remember. Duckduckgo is way more relevant.

      2. Altavista and a dozen other forgotten ’90s relics all returned way better search results than Google and allowed for much more sophisticated query construction. It was AdWords that made Google Google, not PageRank. The only reason Google was eventually more successful in the search space than all its competitors is because of its data collection practices that allow better user targeting. The revenue model now used by DuckDuckGo was the standard revenue model for all search engines, including Google, until data warehousing and mining became practical. Google is a data broker, not a search engine. Google’s users are the product, not the customer.

        1. Google is Google because in 2002 they paid AOL to be the only search engine

  6. lol all of Mozilla’s revenue is from Google paying them to be default search in Firefox. Sure would be great for competition if Google was making the only major non-Crapple browser.

  7. I love Google’s technological products but hate their corporate Marxism. Same with every other Soviet … er … Silicon Valley tech company. None of this would have happened if Google didn’t raise suspicions nor assist in the censoring or un-personing of conservatives and libertarians or even people on the Left they disagree with.

    The antitrust investigations and lawsuits are the appropriate retaliation for Google’s nonsense. By joining or assisting the Left they are weaponizing the institutions of free speech and property rights afforded to them (force) and they even try to lie (fraud) about what they do. That is wrong, immoral, and it must stop. If you want to see what I am talking about, check out Matt Gaetz’s questioning Google’s CEO Sundhar Pichai.

    https://youtu.be/1L3SY9PmAQw

    1. “That is wrong, immoral, and it must stop.”

      So if you judge it to be wrong, you will cheer on anyone who finds, invents, or “creatively interprets” existing laws, in order to “hang them high”? Or do you believe in a society of “laws, not men”?

      Lavrentiy Beria … “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria = chief jackbooted thug faces-stomper for Stalin. If Beria had a punishment boner, he would find (or creatively interpret) SOME law, with which he could satisfy his punishment boner!

      Show me the internet company or social media company, and I will show you the crime!

      Just like the suppressors (certainly including hide-bound Trumpistas) of “wrong-think” today!

  8. “The government is going after Google not to stop consumer harm but to level the business playing field.”

    One gets the sense, reading this subheading, that Elizabeth Nolan Brown does not understand the origins or purpose of anti-trust litigation.

  9. This is an excellent article by ENB.

    “The lawsuit against Google does not accuse it of conspiring with its competitors or of acting unilaterally to block new entrants into the market.”

    —-ENB

    Not sure this accounts for Google paying phone manufacturers billions to keep Google as the default search engine–and keep competing search engines off the default screen.

    The main problem with the antitrust suit, however, isn’t whether it has merit. The courts may only become involved once there’s a consent decree. All roads lead to a consent decree–and Google may want that consent decree both to relieve itself of having to pretend it has standards of its own and to put up more barriers to entry up in the industry.

    For those of you who doubt or don’t understand this, consider the following:

    “Google was hit by the biggest U.S. antitrust case in a generation on Tuesday, when the Department of Justice alleged the company is using monopoly power in the web search market to freeze out competition . . . . shares of Google’s parent Alphabet Inc. climbed 1.4% to close at $1,551.08 in New York.

    So why didn’t the stock take a hit?.”

    —-Bloomberg

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/here-s-why-google-shares-rose-after-the-u-s-antitrust-suit

    Google’s stock price went up after the antitrust case was filed.

    Don’t feel that. Just know it.

    Some investors thought that the antitrust case wasn’t as bad as they feared. Some investors, no doubt, thought that the opportunity for Google to put its problems behind it by way of a consent decree is a good thing for Google. Regardless, investors seemed to think that Google is more valuable after the antitrust case was filed than it was before.

    And that means those of you who imagine the outcome of this suit will somehow be bad for Google, its profits, and its business are probably wrong.

    One caveat–if President Trump wins reelection, the market’s assessment may be off on this, but that’s a big IF. If Trump is in the White House when Google’s consent decree is negotiated, it will reflect President Trump’s concerns. If Joe Biden is in office when the Google consent decree is negotiated, it will reflect the concerns of Joe Biden’s radical social justice wing–and it may be the worst thing to happen to the conservatives in terms of getting their message out in American history.

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    1. The problem is that both Google and Facebook have a long record of keeping entrants out through collusion and other means.

      1. The lawsuit against Google does not accuse it of conspiring with its competitors or of acting unilaterally to block new entrants into the market. Nor does it cite common political gripes about Google, such as the idea that it’s working too many different hustles and needs to be “broken up,” or the claim that Google search and YouTube are ideologically biased.

        Then why didn’t the lawsuit make those claims?

        1. Pure informed speculation?

          They are still making it and they expect information to turn up as a reault of shaking these bushes.

          Pretty SOP for government lawyers, actually.

        2. They made the claims in some aspects on their discussion of business practices. Likewise is isnr the only lawsuit allowed to ever be filed.

          I also wasn’t aware that facts not presented in an initial suit meant they were fake. Learned something new today, thanks Leo.

    2. we’re well past any point where anything will “somehow be bad for Google” … and Biden is a crook.

  10. This is sounding like the Microsoft cases of olden times.
    Bring up the old stories, do a change all Microsoft to Google and Internet Explorer to Google search, and you can skip the next 4 years of “reporting”.
    Massive market domination, paid exclusive or priority placement, it’s all the same.

    1. The list of blatantly anti-competitive stuff Microsoft was doing was a mile long, including intentionally making competitors’ software break when running on Windows on numerous occasions. Yeah the bundling of IE was what the government honed in on, but that was like Capone going down for tax evasion.

      1. I remember when everybody thought Netscape was the future–because people were too stupid to reset their default page to something else.

        At one point, everybody thoughts AOL would be the future of the internet for the same reasons. More than half the consumers on the internet thought that AOL’s website was the entirety of the internet.

        I appreciate that “nudging” by way of setting defaults can be an advantage for whatever period of time, and Google wouldn’t pay the phone manufacturers billions to keep Google as their default search engine if they didn’t think it was worth it. But sooner or later, people will learn to reset their defaults the way they want.

        Meanwhile, the share of advertising revenue that that Amazon has won in recent quarters came at Google’s expense. And Walmart/Oracle/TikTok would love to eat some of that up, too. Regardless, I don’t think it’s about the merits of the complaint. We may live to see the day when Amazon and Walmart/Oracle/TikTok are suing the government because they’re showing Google (and Facebook) favoritism by way of Google (and Facebook’s) consent decree.

        P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

  11. ENB has become a prog tards wet dream. Get a new editor folks.

    1. ENB isn’t anybody’s wet dream. Even the sort of people desperate enough to settle for a middle aged wine aunt whore manqué aren’t so self deluded or masochistic as to dream about her.

      1. WCR is that you?

  12. The Libertarian position is apparently to let companies like Google Facebook and Twitter take over enough information distribution so democracy is effectively ended.

    1. The solution where no one regulates speech on the internet has gone out the window with the antitrust suit. There are no freedom of speech issues to overcome in a consent decree–see the consent decree that prohibits the tobacco companies from advertising as one example. They were willing to sign on to that in exchange for immunity (or an agreed upon settlement). The alternative was bankruptcy and liquidation.

      That’s the problem with repealing Section 230. Repealing Section 230 won’t result in pain for Google. It will result in Google signing onto a consent decree–they probably want anyway. Meanwhile, all their competitors (with Section 230 gone) will be buried in a flood of lawsuits. The tobacco consent decree was negotiated with four companies. Eventually, every tobacco company in the country was forced to sign onto it (41 of them as I recall) because they couldn’t survive without it.

      I know conservatives have been sold on the idea that repealing Section 230 will hurt Google and make them start treating conservatives better, but the opposite is true–unless Donald Trump is reelected. With this antitrust suit, the only question that really matters is who will write the rules, and if it’s Joe Biden, conservatives are gonna get screwed.

      We shouldn’t pretend that isn’t the case if that’s the way it is. It’s an excellent reason to tell your friends and family to get out there and vote for President Trump. It’s terrible when libertarians are reduced to voting for someone who isn’t libertarian because the other guy is so awful, but if that’s the way it is–that’s the way it is.

      1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      2. You do realize censorship is censorship with or without government right? And that 230 was allowing corporate censorship through vague TOS terms and allowing SV companies to extend to 230 to contracts right?

        In other words. 230 wasn’t stopping censorship but is now actually protecting it.

        1. Censoring other people’s speech on your property may be censorship, too, but it doesn’t violate anyone’s right.

          It is perfectly permissible to do things that harm other people–so long as you don’t violate their rights. If you bang your best friend’s girlfriend at the prom, that may hurt your friend, but it doesn’t violate his rights. If I start a pizza restaurant right next to your and drive you out of business so you lose your house, your wife, your kids, and the dog–that may hurt you, but I have not violated your rights.

          Government violating people’s rights is the definition of injustice. Individuals violating our rights is the definition of crime.

          Censoring your own property doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

          If you violate a contractual right, that’s a different story. Censoring other people’s property violates someone’s rights. Other people censoring your property violates your rights. The government censoring you violates your rights.

          YouTube censoring their own property doesn’t violate anybody’s rights.

          Once again, remember what rights are–the obligation to respect other people’s choices. Property rights are the same thing. When you say that a pencil belongs to you, what you mean is that you’re the one that gets to decide if the pencil is used, who gets to use it, how it’s used, etc., etc. It means both the government and all the world’s individuals are obligated to respect your choices about how that pencil is used. You can enter into a contract that lets other people use the pencil under various conditions, and then you’ll be obligated to respect their choices within the context of that contract.

          YouTube is Google’s pencil. They should be free to do whatever they choose with it so long as they don’t choose to use it violate someone’s rights. If they choose to use it screw their best friend’s date at the prom, that’s a dick move. They suck for doing that. But they aren’t violating anybody’s rights.

          And the same reason the government and other people shouldn’t be able to force themselves on Google’s choices about how to use their pencil is the same reason no one should be allowed to tell me how I can or can’t use my property–so long as I don’t choose to use it to violate someone’s rights. It’s all the same thing.

          1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

          2. Ypure ignoring the 2nd half of my concern regarding contract terms. They advertised as free and open discussions and changed the terms after having users be captured, many relying on the services for their business model. This is explicit especially with demonstration under YouTube. In nl other industry would this be allowable on the idea of unconscionable contracts.

            Not only is it encouraging censorship after capture but doing so in a way that would not be allowed in other economic areas.

            1. I didn’t ignore it. I didn’t emphasize it. Here’s what I wrote:

              “If you violate a contractual right, that’s a different story . . . . You can enter into a contract that lets other people use the pencil under various conditions, and then you’ll be obligated to respect their choices within the context of that contract.

              —-Ken Shultz

              To the extent that YouTube has violated their content creators’ contractual rights, they should be held responsible for violating the terms of that contract. Maybe they should even face a class action lawsuit–if their contract violations were persistent across bunches of people.

              That isn’t an antitrust issue. That’s a contractual dispute between Google and the content creators whose contractual rights have been violated. That is not a reason for the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department to bring an antitrust suit against them.

              There is a system where the government only allows people to do things with what should be their property–if and when what they’re doing is in the best interests of society. I’s called “socialism”. It’s when choices are made about property by the government instead of the individuals who do and should own it. I am not a socialist. I am a capitalist.

              Again, it is not necessary for what Google’s doing to be in the best interests of society. I don’t know that pornographers, tobacco companies, churches and cults (like the Scientologists), payday loan centers, casinos, or Twitter is in the best interests of society, generally speaking, either.

              People should be free to do as they please with their own property regardless of whether what they want to do is bad for society anyway. There’s no need for a libertarian capitalist to pretend that whatever they want to do is good for society. Even IF IF IF gun rights are bad for society, I’d still support the right to bear arms anyway–so long as they aren’t used to violate someone’s rights.

              Neither you, JesseAZ, nor your rights, nor your property, nor your income–none of those things exist for the benefit of society. All of those things exist for the benefit of JesseAz, and so long as you don’t violate anybody’s rights, you should be free to do as you please with them regardless of whether your choices are good for society.

              Guess what?

              Google doesn’t exist for the good of society either. If they violate someone’s contractual rights, that’s one thing. But what’s the Justice Department’s and the FTC’s antitrust divisions have to do with that? Why are we talking about contractual rights within the context of antitrust?

              1. “Even IF IF IF gun rights are bad for society, I’d still support the right to bear arms anyway–so long as they aren’t used to violate someone’s rights.”

                —-Ken Shultz

                I have a qualitative preference for freedom, and that’s a better reason to support gun rights than whether they’re good for society. If libertarian capitalism is the belief that people should be free to make choices for themselves (and it is), respecting other people’s qualitative preferences is an integral part of that–and makes market capitalism superior to utilitarianism for its ability to account for and optimize the qualitative preferences of hundreds of millions of people in real time. The utilitarians and the socialists can’t hold a candle to that–and I’m not about to give up on the benefits of libertarian capitalism or pretend the world works in some other way just because I hate Google. That’s what the progressives do because their policies can’t account for the real world.

                If Google violated your rights, sue them. If some obtuse judge grossly misinterpreted Section 230 to stop you, get that ruling overturned or push to reform the law so that it won’t be misconstrued to suggest that Google can’t be sued for contract violations. Don’t tell me that Google shouldn’t be allowed to do what it wants with its own property because the FTC or the Justice Department wants to write speech codes on their behalf–and you’re hoping Trump will be in charge..

                Far as I’m concerned, the difference between justifications and rationalizations is that rationalizations start with the assumption that, for instance, you want to fuck Google–and then looks for ways to rationalize that. The real world isn’t kind to rationalizations. The universe is organized in such a way that if your thinking isn’t consistent with reality, you’re gonna get run over by it.

                In the real world, invading Iraq was a mistake or not regardless of how it was rationalized. In the real world, making an investment is justified by the results or not regardless of whether it was rationalized. In the real world, if you launch an antitrust action against Facebook and Google and it ends in a consent decree that fucks conservative voices online for the foreseeable future, it doesn’t matter whether launching those antitrust actions was rationalized.

                P.S. Biden is a crook.

        2. JesseSPAZ shilling AGAIN for the demise of Section 230! JesseSPAZ, who will punish ALL of us, by taking away our freedom of speech, at a practical level, by making it too expensive (for example) for Reason.com to have enough lawyers to parse all of our comments before they get posted! JesseSPAZ wants to punish ALL of our free-speech rights, so that HE can get a “punishment boner” by punishing the likes of Google! Hey JesseSPAZ! Go punish yourself, to get yourself a “punishment boner”, and leave the rest of us OUT of your sick perversions!

          OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

          The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

          This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

          Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

          QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

          “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

          “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

          Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month trial criminal trial, and a 4-month civil trial! Anti-trust trials? Who knows?!?!

          1. Yes. I’m against special protections for favored entities like all libertarians should. If the protections are so good they should be granted to all industries. Weird you favor protected industries.

            1. “Favored entities” like bakers, who might be allowed by Government Almighty, to NOT bake your gay wedding cake? We have to satisfy our punishment boners, and PUNISH those who willfully REFUSE to bake our gay wedding cakes, right? Never mind that it is THEIR cake shop, right?

              And we must satisfy our punishment boners, and PUNISH those who willfully REFUSE to publish your crap on THEIR web site, right? JesseBahnFuhrer, Brilliant Son of THE Stable Genius, PLEASE explain the difference between the cake-baker and the web site owner!

    2. The Libertarian position is apparently to let companies like Google Facebook and Twitter take over enough information distribution so democracy is effectively ended.

      This sounds a lot like what the liberals said after the Citizens United decision.

      It’S tHe eND oF DemOcRacY!

      1. Yes, because a ruling expanding the creation and distribution of information is exactly the same as restricting the creation and distribution of information.

        Sometimes analogies don’t work because the two things being compared aren’t analogous.

        1. Google’s services are their property. Don’t they have the right to use them to promote their political agenda the same as any other corporation? Why is it different than Google using their money, just because you don’t like the outcome?

  13. A little “chew on this” for ENB Verification of Biden emails.

    “Tony Bobulinski said he is the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which he explained “was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family.” He said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar”

  14. Is it really that hard to go to DuckDuckGo. I used it as a web browser on my kindle so I do not not to use silk browser. Hell you can even use google to find other search engines if you want.

    1. It’s almost as if there is an agenda beyond protecting consumers from the vicious Google monopoly.

    2. Google also tracks you if you don’t use their products. They do this even if you opt out. Not sure why people accept bad business behavior because reasons.

      1. Google also tracks you if you don’t use their products.

        So? Does that put me on the naughty list or something?

        1. I think it more illustrates your lack of understanding of the issues in play

        2. Dude. Youre not a libertarian. Youre fine with a company tracking you without your permission? Holy fuck man.

          1. I didn’t say that. I read your comment as Google tracking me for not using their products (somehow).

            Is there any actual evidence that Google can track me without my permission?

            1. By IP address and third-party cookies. Google ads in pages one visits are downloaded from Google servers to one’s IP address which Google records, and may contain Javascript or Java that can set and read third-party cookies which contain other tracking info. If GPS is enabled for one’s browser app, it can read GPS and webpages may read GPS information; and Google ads on those webpages could possibly allow Google servers to read GPS info. I can’t say for sure that is how they do it; but that is how they could.

  15. Google is being sued by 11 states and the federal government, who claim the tech company “is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet.”

    The only Google service I use with any regularity is Maps. Well I have a gmail account that I only use to sign up for things that I don’t want to have to read emails from. I guess I’m not using the internet as I’ve not made it past the gate.

    1. Google knows about you than your credit card agency even if you have never visited the site or held an account, and their services are running in the background on almost every page you visit on the internet. That you’re too stupid to know what a gatekeeper is or how the worldwide web functions, while utterly unsurprising, is not really relevant to the topic at hand.

    2. The only Google service I use with any regularity is Maps.

      I’m sure you think that.

      1. As if that demonstrated anything other than his total retardation anyway.

        “The only Google service I use is the one that allows them to keep track of where I travel 24 hours a day in real time, it’s not like they have any of my personal information!”

  16. I get it, that a copy

  17. A company that wants to get into the internet search business will have a hard time competing with google unless they offer something really innovative. But that’s a feature, not a bug: how many search engines do we really need? It’s not like people didn’t have a shot at that. The world isn’t unfair because I’d have a hard time coming up with a competitive social network, or search engine, or cellphone. It means somethings already been done; time to move on.

    I don’t need the government to fix my “I don’t have enough search engines” problem, or my “I don’t like what my search results are” problem. I really don’t want a government that intrusive.

    I don’t want a free market because I want whatever policies maximize my perceived competition. I want a free market because it’s wrong to use government violence to force outcomes, including this stuff.

    1. A company that wants to get into the internet search business will have a hard time competing with google unless they offer something really innovative can convince Google’s advertisers to break their exclusivity contracts.

      FTFY. This is no different than when Intel was locking up OEMs with exclusivity deals to box AMD out of the PC market and got busted and fined for it.

      1. I really don’t think using government violence to break up exclusivity deals is a good idea.

        1. I, too, enjoyed the great service I received from Ma Bell.

          1. Was that the problem with Ma Bell? Exclusivity agreements?

        2. What was the violence? Who died?

          1. Violence is behind everything the government does. That’s why limited government is such a good thing: we should limit the things for which we threaten people with fines, jail time, and death.

  18. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    These tears are going to age like a fine wine and be savored for years to come.

  19. If you don’t have the ability to understand the technology, you probably shouldn’t be using it. It’s too dangerous for you to get involved with it. Use something a little more your technological speed, like children’s holding blocks.

  20. If you don’t have the ability to understand the technology, you probably shouldn’t be using it. It’s too dangerous for you to get involved with it. Use something a little more your technological speed, like children’s building blocks.

  21. For search users, Google algorithms “deliver more relevant results, particularly on ‘fresh’ queries (queries seeking recent information), location-based queries (queries asking about something in the searcher’s vicinity), and ‘long-tail’ queries (queries used infrequently),” it says. And “few general search text advertisers would find alternative sources [to Google] a suitable substitute.”

    Is this is right really because i m trying to make our blog fresh and relevent but not found results like others.anti-namda receptor-themycare

  22. For practical purposes, Google isn’t a private company; they have benefited, and continue to benefit, strongly from government handouts and regulatory capture. And that’s why government is justified in regulating them and/or breaking them up.

  23. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot….. Read More  

  24. Does Jerry Nadler know that he is a stooge for the Republicans?

  25. Tech giants have basically taken control of all avenues of speech in the world and then selectively started censoring voices that oppose the leftist narrative. This is not in dispute.
    They have so much absolute control that they can pander to one political side along with their other media allies to their own economic benefit.
    These organizations have recreated the dystopian future parodied in Robocop and predicted by Orwell, with all information tightly controlled and obvious lies being given as facts.
    We are literally expected to pretend we believe what we know is not true.
    And Reason apparently cannot see what is going on or is perfectly happy to allow this power to grow and continue.
    Some libertarians are so devoted to their ideology that they would allow the whole thing go to hell rather than dare to acknowledge that yeah, private companies with monopolies can lead to horrific results.
    And if I hear another libertarian say “well, just start your own social media platform if you don’t like Twitter/facebook/google/Instagram etc,” I’m going to post a sharply worded comment. No screaming.
    When you’re so locked into your dogma that you can no longer see the real world, you need to rethink how you’re thinking.

  26. ★I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I’m a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I’AM profited. It’s truly easy to understand and I’m simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you….. Read More  

  27. “No one is obligated to keep these default applications or search settings” except OEMs which are paid to observe that binding contact obligation against consideration. While, the search engine might be a superior product against its peers the practice of paying eqiupment producers to keep it as an default option keeps potential New market entries more dificult. One may wonder if product is superior why paying eqiupment producers, and what is consumers’ gain with such a practice? The innovation output is certainly reduced. Having a superior product is not an argument for paying OEMs since practice does not have any positive effect on consumers welfare, yet it keeps potential competitors/distruptive investments at bay.

    1. obligated in exchange for money… a fundamental of contract law.

  28. ENB should change her name to Bellatrix Lestrange and run through the halls screeching “I hate Republicans” – wait, no need for that much effort.

    She has always been an idiot studying to be a moron, but gained some favor b/c she was “cute” and sometimes appeared in the comments back in the day.

  29. ★I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I’m a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I’AM profited. It’s truly easy to understand and I’m simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you….. Read More  

  30. The tech companies act like sovereign nations which they are not.

    They are selling a space for public opinion and yet are picking and choosing their customers…seems like the rest of the private sector isn’t allowed to do that???

  31. Getting paid easily every month from home by doing very easy and simple job from home. I have received my 3rd paycheck of $19852 last month from this home based easy job in part time. Every person can get this job and start making real cash online by follow details here..  Read More  

  32. “The government is going after Google not to stop consumer harm but to level the business playing field.”

    Level the playing field of campaign donations, that is! Bill Gates and Microsoft learned that the hard way! Start to “play nicely with others in Washington DC” ( = make more bribes, ooops, I mean, more campaign donations, to the RIGHT people) and the charges will go away!

    ————————————————————————————————————–
    https://4u-review.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.