There should be a new expression like "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?"

"Is Google a monopoly?"

Picking winners and losers isn't the issue. Monopolies themselves are the issue and they can exist without government cut-outs.

For a company to be a monopoly they have to become big enough to choke out any competing entities. To do this they can buyout the competition out right or they can lower their prices below a profit point to drive others out of the market. We see this all across many of our giant corporations here in America, not just with Google. That's an issue. However, Google is substantially larger, more covert, and diversified into a number of sectors. They also have many politicians in their pocket which not only protects them from scrutiny but benefits them in legislation. All of these factors are problematic to a free market economy.

To summarize, Google has gotten way too big, as have many other corps, and they like all monopolies should be broken up. The only problem is our government is afraid of them in many aspects and I think no one knows the fallout that could unfold from combating them. As they are essentially a small economy on their own right.

Rascal said:

---

When did "information" become a constitutional right?

---

Sorry, missed this post. I'm not sure what you mean since I didn't say that.

I don't think our regulations, governed by the Constitution, have figured out how to deal with the internet in its current form. I think there are issues with speech, assembly, access to a new commons, and even election fraud/deceit that all need to be hashed out.

This current crisis has made the problem all the more urgent as people are cut off from personal interaction and hoaxes and misinformation run wild. The voters who theoretically govern the government are getting their information through Google's filters. The governments, federal and local, are making decisions based on a perceived predominancy of opinion that appears to be heavily influenced by a small group of massive information companies - they are influencing the masses and selectively amplifying the voices of part of the masses to make that segment sound louder.

It's just a big sticky mess with a lot of ramifications for how our democracy functions and what it decides to do. Federalism is dying.

Rascal said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

There are legitimate reasons to break up monopolies. It's a part of capatalism...

---

So, we Conservatives like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act so long as it's used appropriately?

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?

---

Not sure I follow. The Act was developed by Republicans, Republicans in Congress voted for it unanimously and it was most famously used by Teddy Roosevelt (Republican). What am I missing?

Quote:

---

Sorry, missed this post. I'm not sure what you mean since I didn't say that.

---

not something really safe and predictable without any constitutional ramifications like... information.

This was in your initial post that I took to mean that you think information "is" something with constitutional ramifications.

Quote:

---

I don't think our regulations, governed by the Constitution, have figured out how to deal with the internet in its current form. I think there are issues with speech, assembly, access to a new commons, and even election fraud/deceit that all need to be hashed out.

---

why is the internet any different than "freedom of the press"? it's simply a technological improvement to the way information is voluntarily distributed and shared, assuming all done legally. investigate malfeasance all day long, but to broadly say that the Constitution is not keeping up with the times, seems awfully Progressive minded to me.

Quote:

---

This current crisis has made the problem all the more urgent as people are cut off from personal interaction and hoaxes and misinformation run wild. The voters who theoretically govern the government are getting their information through Google's filters. The governments, federal and local, are making decisions based on a perceived predominancy of opinion that appears to be heavily influenced by a small group of massive information companies - they are influencing the masses and selectively amplifying the voices of part of the masses to make that segment sound louder.

---

Again, this tone sounds like something a Progressive would say, akin to "we have to act now....".

People are not cut off from information- they have a dozen other search engine or browsers they can use not named Google. In a free market, it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves and to socialize that information. a single entity like Google, that again, is one of many options, does not have that much practical power unless we give it to them by choice or via government fiat.

MaxPower said:

---

Rascal said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

There are legitimate reasons to break up monopolies. It's a part of capatalism...

---

So, we Conservatives like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act so long as it's used appropriately?

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?

---

Not sure I follow. The Act was developed by Republicans, Republicans in Congress voted for it unanimously and it was most famously used by Teddy Roosevelt (Republican). What am I missing?

---

Teddy Roosevelt practically invented Progressivism- not a good quality. I'm no expert on the Antitrust Act, but in the Progressive era of the early 1900's, I'm quite skeptical of its intent and constitutional uses.

Rascal said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.

---

Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.

---

This is foolish. They dominate the ad server realm by far

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

Rascal said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Google isn't a search engine company. They're a data collecting company.

---

and there are numerous privacy laws on the books preventing what's called Personal Identifiable Information from being digested or used for any purposes.

---

While there might be laws, PII is easily found. Very easily. Know a person's address? You'll find everything on them with geofencing that can then tie static addresses to mobile identifiers to give cross device matching. Have their email address? Same thing. You have zero privacy

Rascal said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

---

There's no actual competition here though. There are other providers but the market is dominated

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

---

There's no actual competition here though. There are other providers but the market is dominated

---

Isn't that simply good, strategic business? why is Google (or any other company in any industry that ascends to the top) to be punished for their success?

The best analogy I can come up with to explain the amount of control Google has currently:

Imagine a private company building all of the highways and road systems across the country before a time when roadways existed. Now then, because that same company built the road systems, imagine them being able to add/remove traffic signage (instantly mind you) that could affect the flow of traffic based on any desire of reasons (political or financial incentives). Assuming the company has no governing oversight, and that no one can track or monitor the traffic sign changes, what's to stop this company from making drivers be redirected to other states/cities (skipping large populations altogether)? Also, how do private business owners give directions to their clients when the signs won't let the flow of traffic to go in their direction? Nothing. And that's what Google is doing with just in terms of internet browsing.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with their data collection nor their ads, which on their own rights are monopolies also. In fact, both of these are likely the bigger issue, but if they can continue to control the "traffic" these become exponentially more dangerous.

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

---

There's no actual competition here though. There are other providers but the market is dominated

---

Minus any malfeasance, coercion or deception, it sounds like they offer a good service that consumers choose to participate in. The government doesn't force consumers to use Google or any other service, notwithstanding other corrupt agreements that pollute the waters like when government picks winners and losers (i.e. protecting certain ISPs in certain markets).

If the Aggies somehow managed to win the next 5 out of 6 CFP Championships, should the NCAA then step in and limit them to not competing for 6 out of 7?

AggieKeith15 said:

---

The best analogy I can come up with to explain the amount of control Google has currently:

Imagine a private company building all of the highways and road systems across the country before a time when roadways existed. Now then, because that same company built the road systems, imagine them being able to add/remove traffic signage (instantly mind you) that could affect the flow of traffic based on any desire of reasons (political or financial incentives). Assuming the company has no governing oversight, and that no one can track or monitor the traffic sign changes, what's to stop this company from making drivers be redirected to other states/cities (skipping large populations altogether)? Also, how do private business owners give directions to their clients when the signs won't let the flow of traffic to go in their direction? Nothing. And that's what Google is doing with just in terms of internet browsing.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with their data collection nor their ads, which on their own rights are monopolies also. I'm fact, both of these are likely the bigger issue, but if they can continue to control the "traffic" these become exponentially more dangerous.

---

How about common sense and basic alertness of the populace or consumer base? Or the fact that even your hypothetical doesn't operate in a vacuum. Roads are not the only way to get around and IF Google was doing this, then the consumer would not use the service because it wouldn't benefit them. Google, just like every company has little incentive to piss off a large % of its customer base.

I get the intent of your analogy, but it has many flaws baked into that render it [the point you are trying to make] null and void.

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.

---

Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.

---

This is foolish. They dominate the ad server realm by far

---

dominating a marketplace is now bad?

Big 4 meet Congress tomorrow....probably deep state pow-wow but could be interesting.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53571562

Rascal said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

The best analogy I can come up with to explain the amount of control Google has currently:

Imagine a private company building all of the highways and road systems across the country before a time when roadways existed. Now then, because that same company built the road systems, imagine them being able to add/remove traffic signage (instantly mind you) that could affect the flow of traffic based on any desire of reasons (political or financial incentives). Assuming the company has no governing oversight, and that no one can track or monitor the traffic sign changes, what's to stop this company from making drivers be redirected to other states/cities (skipping large populations altogether)? Also, how do private business owners give directions to their clients when the signs won't let the flow of traffic to go in their direction? Nothing. And that's what Google is doing with just in terms of internet browsing.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with their data collection nor their ads, which on their own rights are monopolies also. I'm fact, both of these are likely the bigger issue, but if they can continue to control the "traffic" these become exponentially more dangerous.

---

How about common sense and basic alertness of the populace or consumer base? Or the fact that even your hypothetical doesn't operate in a vacuum. Roads are not the only way to get around and IF Google was doing this, then the consumer would not use the service because it wouldn't benefit them. Google, just like every company has little incentive to piss off a large % of its customer base.

I get the intent of your analogy, but it has many flaws baked into that render it [the point you are trying to make] null and void.

---

Consumers want to consume the most powerful tool available to them because it's common sense to do so, therefore Google would always be the common sense choice. Again, this is because they are a monopoly and there is essentially no real viable alternative to choose from.

And you're right it's an analogy I just came up with, so it's not perfect. But since in my example this development is occuring before any other road systems have been built, it in theory would be cutting edge and the most advanced means of transportation. Also, once all of the roads are built, what's to stop them from diversifying into other, even more advanced, endeavors (helicopters, jets, spacehsips, teleportation)? They have a lot of money from the road systems they've built, they are definitely wealthy enough to position themselves in other opportunities. Again, this shows the problem with monopolies, they can be ahead of the curve and go into other sectors and wreak havoc/takeover.

Dominating a market is bad, because it means a company can choke out competition. That's not good for free markets.

Rascal said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.

---

Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.

---

This is foolish. They dominate the ad server realm by far

---

dominating a marketplace is now bad?

---

Umm yes thats the very basis of monopolistic control

If you tell me that DuckDuckGo is owned by Google, I'll be very sad.

Rascal said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

---

Who? I doubt they have near the marketshare that youtube has.

Rascal said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

Do you know who owns youtube?

---

I certainly do. Do you know that there are actually other video sharing companies that exist and that compete with YouTube?

---

There's no actual competition here though. There are other providers but the market is dominated

---

Isn't that simply good, strategic business? why is Google (or any other company in any industry that ascends to the top) to be punished for their success?

---

Because in our country there are limits to how much market share a company can have. It chokes out competition, which is valued in our society. Allowing one company to grow without limit kills the market that it is in. That's not a good thing. A company that can grow without limit can and does infringe on peoples freedoms. If it grows large enough, they cannot be stopped. That's why.

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

We broke up Standard Oil for having far less of a monopoly. Google absolutely is one.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-google-get-so-big-60-minutes/

60 Minutes explained it very well a year or so ago - and yes they are a modern day monopoly

Bobcat06 said:

---

pfo said:

---

88% of searches are Google, Google Images, Google Maps and U-Tube which is owned by Google

---

Pornhub is 12% of the internet?

---

Look up Mindgeek, they own almost every porn site. They are almost a total monopoly and yes this is actually as insidious as it looks because they know no one will look into it at all because no politician wants to be the one to do it.

YouTube is pretty close.

Ulrich said:

---

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.

---

Their monopoly allows them to do all of these things with utter impunity though. Their feeling is "What are you going to do, use someone else? Hahahaha don't make us laugh!"

Their monopoly is exactly the problem. If they had more competition, they wouldn't be able to use these underhanded tactics to push their political agenda.

I don't know how you break up Google, specifically the browser. Do you force users to redirect to another browser when they type www.google.com?

Interesting, it seems there's bipartisan angst about big tech. Republicans are more concerned with censorship of the right while the left is concerned about the typical consumer costs and job impact. Can they actually agree to do something?

Quote:

---

A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump's victory, comparing Trump voters to "extremists" and discussing their desire to make Trump's election and the populist movement a "blip" in history.

True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

Google Has Been Purging Breitbart Content from Search Results Since the 2016 Election
Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher's content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart's search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only 55 search terms.

Moreover, organic Google search traffic to Breitbart (measured by unique visitors) is down 63 percent when comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2020.

The following chart shows the visibility of Breitbart content in the Google search engine since 2011. It shows that Google has nearly eliminated Breitbart content from its search results.

---

Quote:

---

On May 1, Google searches for "Joe Biden" generated approximately 30,000 impressions (views, used as a metric for advertisers) for Breitbart links. After May 5, both impressions and clicks went to zero.

Breitbart News spoke to an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) expert, a 25-year industry veteran, whose job consists of analyzing traffic data from Google's own website performance portal, Google Search Console.

The expert, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had never seen anything like this graph and that it indicates highly probable manipulation on the part of Google.

"I've never experienced such a wholesale removal of rank and visibility on specific concepts on a site as I have seen being applied to Breitbart," said the expert. "Removal is the key, not dropping in rank, which would be an organic devaluing. These ranks are just simply gone, overnight, while other topics have been untouched."

"The sheer fact that there are thousands of pages of Breitbart content that reference Biden that were ranking before May 6, that now have no rank or impressions on search is a sign of manipulation, not algorithmic devaluing."

---

LINK

Anyone still think they are not a monopoly?

FrankK said:

---

Rascal said:

---

Why does Tucker Carlson in particular keep saying this? There are plenty other search engines and browsers is there not?

---

I cannot find a way to explain something to a person who doesn't comprehend the definition of that about which they are asking.

---

Others in here have tried and succeeded. Would love to hear yours too!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump's victory, comparing Trump voters to "extremists" and discussing their desire to make Trump's election and the populist movement a "blip" in history.

True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

Google Has Been Purging Breitbart Content from Search Results Since the 2016 Election
Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher's content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart's search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only 55 search terms.

Moreover, organic Google search traffic to Breitbart (measured by unique visitors) is down 63 percent when comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2020.

The following chart shows the visibility of Breitbart content in the Google search engine since 2011. It shows that Google has nearly eliminated Breitbart content from its search results.

---

Quote:

---

On May 1, Google searches for "Joe Biden" generated approximately 30,000 impressions (views, used as a metric for advertisers) for Breitbart links. After May 5, both impressions and clicks went to zero.

Breitbart News spoke to an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) expert, a 25-year industry veteran, whose job consists of analyzing traffic data from Google's own website performance portal, Google Search Console.

The expert, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had never seen anything like this graph and that it indicates highly probable manipulation on the part of Google.

"I've never experienced such a wholesale removal of rank and visibility on specific concepts on a site as I have seen being applied to Breitbart," said the expert. "Removal is the key, not dropping in rank, which would be an organic devaluing. These ranks are just simply gone, overnight, while other topics have been untouched."

"The sheer fact that there are thousands of pages of Breitbart content that reference Biden that were ranking before May 6, that now have no rank or impressions on search is a sign of manipulation, not algorithmic devaluing."

---

LINK

Anyone still think they are not a monopoly?

---

Possible solution: STOP USING GOOGLE?

Dad said:

---

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%.

---

Use this instead of Google: https://duckduckgo.com/

MaxPower said:

---

I don't know how you break up Google, specifically the browser. Do you force users to redirect to another browser when they type www.google.com?

Interesting, it seems there's bipartisan angst about big tech. Republicans are more concerned with censorship of the right while the left is concerned about the typical consumer costs and job impact. Can they actually agree to do something?

---

With all due respect, you are missing the point of what Google can do and does...
A Browser does not do the "Searching"...a "Search Engine" does. And Google algorithms, which have been coded many years ago, have been refined, updated and honed to a sharp point that they can either gut a point of view, or make it the #1 search engine response.

They have Chrome...they have Android, they advertising services...etc., etc., etc.

Most importantly, Google has over time linked these services and platforms into a cohesive internet machine that has, by default, constructed impervious barriers to entry for competitors, or potential competitors, that are too tough to overcome -- thus who can challenge?

Break 'em up...break 'em to such a granular level, that Android is separate from hardware, separate from search engines, browsers and applications, etc., which cannot interact or collude to produce integrated anything. Period. They can only issue an API Standard, which other products can use to interact...but no secrets sharing.

Break up Facebook too...strip WhatsApp out...and any other application that helps construct barriers to entry.

Force Twitter to Open Source their Interface to an API, so that others can pick it up, build a competitor...

Do the same thing to them, only even MORE atomic, that David Boies tried to do to Microsoft in the late 90's...MS had cut to length, hammered to fit, caulked and painted to match the Virus Collection Software Application, commonly called "Internet Exploder", into their POS OS called "Windows", in order to prevent competitors in both OS AND Browsers...granted, the hot mess they created enabled a multi-Billion $$ industry called "anti-virus", but...

Odd, we are technologically about 25 years further along the technology timeline, but back in the same predicament...how quickly our leaders forget consequences when their pockets are filled with treats from Pelosi and Schumer's Chocolate Factory...