Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?
Google is a Monopoly?
9,408 Views |
114 Replies |
Last: 18 hrs ago by aggiehawg
What percent of searches occur on Google? And what laws is Google exempt from?
Grandpa, is that you?Quote:
search engines and browsers
Tucker points out various Congressional carve-outs they have. There is definitely some protection going on that seems out of place.Why am I here? said:
What percent of searches occur on Google? And what laws is Google exempt from?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.
I cannot think of another company more closely representative of a monopoly than google within the confines of their market: widespread distribution of information via their search engine.
“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
-Matthew 6:34
-Matthew 6:34
Quick, someone google what percentage of searches use google's search engine.
I used it for 100% of my searches until today. Now I am aiming for 0%.
I used it for 100% of my searches until today. Now I am aiming for 0%.
Well especially with the politicizing that seems to be going on, though Twitter seems even more overt about it?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Don't know if this accurate.
From Wordstream.com
General Google Search Statistics
[ol]
3.5 billion Google searches are made every day. (Internet Live Stats) The volume of Google searches grows by roughly 10% every year. (Internet Live Stats) Every year, somewhere between 16% and 20% of Google searches are newthey've never been searched before. (Internet Live Stats) 90% of searches made on desktops are done via Google. (Statista) 35% of product searches start on Google. (eMarketer) 34% of "near me" searches done via desktop and tablets result in store visits. (HubSpot) The average Google search session lasts just under a minute. (Moz) Dating & Personal Services advertisers drive the highest CTRs on paid Google results. Just over 6% of their impressions turn into clicks! (WordStream) Organic Google results with 3-4 words in the title drive higher CTRs than organic results with 1-2 words in the title. (Smart Insights) Google has indexed hundreds of billions of web pages. All told, the index is about 100,000,000 GB large. (Google) [/ol]
From Wordstream.com
General Google Search Statistics
[ol]
Under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a monopoly doesn't have to mean it controls 100% of the market.
It simply means it controls enough of the market to exert undue influence and control over the marketplace, to the detriment of consumers and competitors.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly, but it was broken up anyway. In 1880, they did have around 90% of the US refining capacity, but by the time it was broken up in 1911, that was down to around 60%, mostly thanks to the new oil companies, especially in Texas and California. The decline would have continued with the rapid increase in the demand for oil, which Standard Oil could never have come close to meeting, while their competitors had much greater room to expand.
Using the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States as a basis, Google should be broken up.
Chrome/Android
Search Engine
Advertising Services
Other Web Services (Gmail, Docs, etc.)
YouTube
It simply means it controls enough of the market to exert undue influence and control over the marketplace, to the detriment of consumers and competitors.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly, but it was broken up anyway. In 1880, they did have around 90% of the US refining capacity, but by the time it was broken up in 1911, that was down to around 60%, mostly thanks to the new oil companies, especially in Texas and California. The decline would have continued with the rapid increase in the demand for oil, which Standard Oil could never have come close to meeting, while their competitors had much greater room to expand.
Using the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States as a basis, Google should be broken up.
Chrome/Android
Search Engine
Advertising Services
Other Web Services (Gmail, Docs, etc.)
YouTube
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
As a percentage of market share, it in the same category as US Steel, Standard Oil, Ma Bell. Seeing as they control information aggregation and distribution and that gives vastly more political influence, I'd say Google is possibly the most powerful effective monopoly in several markets it operates in that has ever existed regarding the ability to manipulate favorable outcomes.
PS. I used BING to search for the answer.
88% of searches are Google, Google Images, Google Maps and U-Tube which is owned by Google
More stamping of the feet that google needs to be broken up!
I am sure my brat will see that soon and tell me why I need to stop using google.
I am sure my brat will see that soon and tell me why I need to stop using google.
Google isn't a search engine company. They're a data collecting company.
SquirrellyDan said:
Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.
This. Ad tech. Search engine results. Google analytics. YouTube advertising. It's a whole package with no way to compete.
If Exxon had half as much control over any of its markets, the left would throw a screaming fit.
But that's a commodity that the owner wants to sell a lot of to anyone who will buy, not something really safe and predictable without any constitutional ramifications like... information.
But that's a commodity that the owner wants to sell a lot of to anyone who will buy, not something really safe and predictable without any constitutional ramifications like... information.
When did "information" become a constitutional right?
How many other companies like Google spent 8 years with O in the WH? Most during his last 4 years...
Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.SquirrellyDan said:
Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.
Welcome to nerdcon 1. Other search engines aside, existing laws would prevent anyone from being able to build an index like the one Google has today. So....maybe?
Funny, but what are the correct terms then?lead said:Grandpa, is that you?Quote:
search engines and browsers
...and a data hiding company, apparently.ABATTBQ11 said:
Google isn't a search engine company. They're a data collecting company.
Not when I'm done with it.
and this would be run of the mill corruption with big government picking winners and losers, no?titan said:Tucker points out various Congressional carve-outs they have. There is definitely some protection going on that seems out of place.Why am I here? said:
What percent of searches occur on Google? And what laws is Google exempt from?
There are legitimate reasons to break up monopolies. It's a part of capitalism...
Yes. Google is a monopoly.Rascal said:
Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?
Next question?
Oh, that's interesting. "Laws" means government involved, which does imply some kind of special exception. Especially one preventing a similar competitor. Like you say, `maybe'....Diyala Nick said:
Welcome to nerdcon 1. Other search engines aside, existing laws would prevent anyone from being able to build an index like the one Google has today. So....maybe?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
So, we Conservatives like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act so long as it's used appropriately?AggieKeith15 said:
There are legitimate reasons to break up monopolies. It's a part of capatalism...
We don't believe that the world and its economy is dynamic enough to innovate out of a static position where a current monopoly exists?
I'm not necessarily being combative here, really brainstorming.
I get that there seems to be deals that the government made with Google (and other companies, other industries) to protect it. I don't like that picking "winners and losers" concept, but it also seems apparent to me that Google earned their monopolistic status and it's the job of a free market capitalistic society to innovate and solve the problem if indeed they are a problem.
Right?
and there are numerous privacy laws on the books preventing what's called Personal Identifiable Information from being digested or used for any purposes.ABATTBQ11 said:
Google isn't a search engine company. They're a data collecting company.
Yes and no. You are making your argument too simple on its face.
Google has protections to be a neutral platform which it has CLEARLY now violated with the way it's algorithms provide pre-decided results and skews users to/from certain view points.
In time, another platform could compete with Google, but not until protections are stripped away (rightfully so) and time given to build up.
Capitalist forces should intervene at some point, but wouldn't it be hard to compete if the only real game in town kept users from seeing stories about the abuses of Google? I'm sure they don't allow those search results to come up at the top of the page!
Fair question, but a very complex answer for someone way more IT intellectually competent to answer than some old dude like me.
Google has protections to be a neutral platform which it has CLEARLY now violated with the way it's algorithms provide pre-decided results and skews users to/from certain view points.
In time, another platform could compete with Google, but not until protections are stripped away (rightfully so) and time given to build up.
Capitalist forces should intervene at some point, but wouldn't it be hard to compete if the only real game in town kept users from seeing stories about the abuses of Google? I'm sure they don't allow those search results to come up at the top of the page!
Fair question, but a very complex answer for someone way more IT intellectually competent to answer than some old dude like me.
Good post.Why am I here? said:
Yes and no. You are making your argument too simple on its face.
Google has protections to be a neutral platform which it has CLEARLY now violated with the way it's algorithms provide pre-decided results and skews users to/from certain view points.
In time, another platform could compete with Google, but not until protections are stripped away (rightfully so) and time given to build up.
Capitalist forces should intervene at some point, but wouldn't it be hard to compete if the only real game in town kept users from seeing stories about the abuses of Google? I'm sure they don't allow those search results to come up at the top of the page!
Fair question, but a very complex answer for someone way more IT intellectually competent to answer than some old dude like me.
Agree, this should be the focus and I guess that is where Tucker is coming from.
It's not the only real game in town. Just like with the mainstream media, Hollywood and now Sports, consumers have a choice to not support these companies that are offering bad service. There are dozens of other web browsers and search engines one can choose to use over Google.
The neutrality protection is the key obviously, so as long as that is somehow done away with, I would hope that the default position for my Conservative friends here would be that it's OK if a company achieves monopoly status. Someone said it's OK (assuming normal conditions) for a capitalistic system to strip away a monopoly. I disagree with that as a free market capitalist.
i wonder if google's name will come up when the documents are opened...
Pornhub is 12% of the internet?pfo said:
88% of searches are Google, Google Images, Google Maps and U-Tube which is owned by Google
My issue with Google is not about economic monopoly, it's about deceptive practices. I actually don't really think an economic monopoly is a bad thing, and Google is a case in my favor: they are incredibly dominant yet they drive prices down, which i think is probably more likely than not in monopoly situations.
Where I have a problem is that Google intentionally does things to alter how people see the world, and they do it in a way that is very difficult to spot especially to the object of their manipulations. Their ubiquity (along with Twitter and some other services) means they do this bad thing millions of times per day, and they do it to voters in a democracy. There's a parallel to bad governance in a public corporation, but it's too involved to type out in a post that feels like it's already going to be long.
Their size is dangerous in another way, which is that one could imagine an environment with 1,000 equally-sized googles, each merrily trying to twist and warp information in a randomly determined direction. That would all cancel out. It would be terrible, but it would cancel out. With one Google and a few tiny competitors, all the malfeasance is pushing one direction.
That's why we've seen accelerating polarization driven by a hard leftward shift as we move deeper into the information age, an age where there tends to be one massive winner in any given segment, all of whom are headquartered in a few square miles in/near San Francisco.
I believe that the violence and strife we're seeing every day is, in part, Google's fault.
Where I have a problem is that Google intentionally does things to alter how people see the world, and they do it in a way that is very difficult to spot especially to the object of their manipulations. Their ubiquity (along with Twitter and some other services) means they do this bad thing millions of times per day, and they do it to voters in a democracy. There's a parallel to bad governance in a public corporation, but it's too involved to type out in a post that feels like it's already going to be long.
Their size is dangerous in another way, which is that one could imagine an environment with 1,000 equally-sized googles, each merrily trying to twist and warp information in a randomly determined direction. That would all cancel out. It would be terrible, but it would cancel out. With one Google and a few tiny competitors, all the malfeasance is pushing one direction.
That's why we've seen accelerating polarization driven by a hard leftward shift as we move deeper into the information age, an age where there tends to be one massive winner in any given segment, all of whom are headquartered in a few square miles in/near San Francisco.
I believe that the violence and strife we're seeing every day is, in part, Google's fault.
Do you know who owns youtube?Rascal said:
Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Fight! Fight! Fight!