The most money-making part of the internet is search -- deciding what people see when they look for products, information, and political information --and Google is a monopolist in it.
They're also a monopolist in the second biggest money-making part of the internet sector -- placing ads on websites -- but this judge hasn't ruled on that.
And of course the search function gives Google the power to privilege some businesses (like CNN) and punish others (like mine). And of course this isn't a hypothetical power they can abuse; try searching for "Trump rally" and they'll serve you ten articles for "Kamala Harris rally."
Search for news about anything and Google will make you scroll through two or three pages of results until you find one that isn't from CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, AL FUCKING JAZEERA, etc.
That's why monopolies are illegal: Because the monopolist has the power from his one part of the economy, which is already distorted by the presence of a monopoly, to distort many other parts of the economy. He can use his monopoly power in one market to distort other markets.
And Google is unquestionably doing that.
I just don't understand people who are still relying on Talking Points from Rush Limbaugh from the 1993 anti-trust lawsuit about Microsoft, or talking points from National Review's gang of corporatist-funded corporate authoritarians, to see that yes, Google is a monopoly and further, Google is using that monopoly power in exactly the way we don't want it to, to leverage that monopoly power in one sector of the economy to pick winners and losers in every other sector.
Judge Declares Google a Monopoly: What Comes Next
Judge Amit Mehta said in his ruling that the company "is a monopolist," and has violated US antitrust law, specifically, Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
On Monday, a federal judge ruled against tech giant Google in a landmark case that alleged the company acted illegally to keep a monopoly in search, saying it paid companies to make Google the default search engine on smartphones and other devices.
People who repeat the Zombie Talking Point that "monopolies are transitory because competitors always rise up" stupidly ignore the fact that Google is paying other companies to make its offering the default option.
And when, exactly, will these competitors "rise up" and displace Google? In sixty fucking years? Maybe 100? Maybe 300?
What are people, like me, supposed to do for sixty fucking years as Google uses its monopoly to deny traffic to my business? Shall I just quote happily from Adam Smith and babble about "the Invisible Hand" coming to rescue me in 60 years as I go bankrupt?
The case has the potential to change how tech companies do business, as well as how their customers find answers to their online search queries. The trial, held last year, took 10 weeks and was years in the making.
"After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote. "It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act."
Why is this so important?
The ruling comes as Big Tech is seeing renewed scrutiny from regulators both domestically and abroad. Apple was hit with an antitrust suit by the US Department of Justice and 16 state attorneys general earlier this year arguing that the iPhone maker had too tight of a control on its premium handset, preventing other companies from creating applications that could compete with its own.
Amazon too was hit with a lawsuit by the US Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general last year alleging the online retail giant engages in exclusionary and anticompetitive behavior. And, per the EU's Digital Markets Act, Apple had to allow third-party app stores to work with iPhone. Google itself has been embroiled in a number of lawsuits, including one involving data handling in its Chrome browser.
Google is currently the king of online search, with over 91% global market share, according to GlobalStats.
Mehta's ruling did not include potential remedies for Google's behavior, The New York Times reports. His decision in that regard could force the company to change how it operates or even sell off part of the company.
They're also a monopoly in placing advertising on websites. Again, they use this monopoly power to destroy businesses -- and speech, and political parties and political movements they disapprove of -- using the power of monopoly that we are for some reason permitting them to keep and abuse.
I don't know if you can talk about squelching political parties and movements as being an anti-trust violation. I don't know if political movements can be protected by the law the way actual businesses can, so I'm focusing on people trying to earn a living and being destroyed by this monopoly.
But yes, Google is leveraging its monopoly power to favor the radical left and to silence the common-sense right.
Break. Them. Up.
Using your monopoly power to squelch competition is the ONE FUCKING THING that monopolies are not allowed to do. Obviously, using monopoly power to squelch competition is stopping the very "free market forces" the babbling libertarian morons claim will "create new competitors to rise up."
But whatever, the corporatists gotta repeat corporatist propaganda to keep them corporatist donations flowing.
Can't wait for National Review and Commentary to tell us all that we must support Google and wait for that 60-150 years for "competitors to rise up naturally."
Corporations are not deities to be worshiped and I wish the Corporate Cultists would realize that.
But, of course, the monopolies are paying them to be pro-monopoly -- again, leveraging their monopoly power to keep their monopoly power.