Is Google A Monopoly?

Should Google be broken up as a monopoly? The classic antitrust case in the United States was Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States:

“By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88 percent of the refined oil flows in the United States. … In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. … In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce …” (Wikipedia)

According to some sources Google is close to being a monopoly, a monopoly of information:

It’s common knowledge that Google has a monopolistic hold on search traffic. comScore’s widely cited numbers place Google’s search market share at 67%, followed by Bing at 19% and Yahoo at 10%.   The Facebook and Google Duopoly, Shahzad Abbas, APRIL 14, 2015

According to Net Market Share the global marketing share percentage, in terms of the use of Search Engines heavily favoured Google throughout 2017 – averaging a net share of 74.54%. Search Engine Statistics 2018

In 2008 the United States Department of Justice came very close to filing an antitrust suit against Google:

In April 2008, the $157 billion company [Google] announced plans to pair up with Yahoo! Inc. in an agreement that would have allowed Yahoo to use Google to sell advertising on its own pages; Yahoo currently uses its own platform to do so.

But the Department of Justice wasn’t so keen on the proposed plan and notified Google that it would be slapped with an antitrust suit if it went ahead with the Yahoo agreement; just three hours before the DOJ was planning on filing suit, the deal was dropped. Is Google a Monopoly?, legalzoom

Wikipedia also defines a public utility as:

“Public utility. A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.” Public Utility, Wikipedia

Should we see Google as a monopoly on what is properly seen as a public utility, a public information utility? Should the U.S. government prosecute Google under the Sherman Antitrust Act?

I think so.

Americans need to hear both sides of the story, to see the pro and cons of important ideas from at least two different points of view. But it is becoming more and more obvious that Google leans heavily Leftward and is becoming bolder and bolder at suppressing Conservative people and ideas.

Project Veritas recently released an undercover video revealing that Google has plans for the 2020 election:

“Jen Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google, a sector that monitors and evaluates the responsible implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies.  In the video, Gennai says Google has been working diligently to “prevent” the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020:

We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?” -Insider Blows Whistle … (Project Veritas)

It is simply too dangerous for one company to have this much power. It is dangerous to have one large company decide what people should see and hear (Youtube is owned by Google).

It would be dangerous regardless of which way Google leaned politically. It would be just as dangerous to have a Conservative search engine with this sort of power. Americans need to hear from a  lot of different people with radically different ideas and then make their decisions based on a broad spectrum of ideas, not a narrow channel funneled through a deeply prejudiced and self-righteous source like Google.

The Illusion of Left and Right – Part 2

The Modern Landscape

In The Illusion of Left And Right we discovered that the terms “Left” and “Right” in politics came from the French Revolution. One important takeaway from that is that those who seek to preserve the status quo are on the Right, and those who seek radical change are on the Left. 

So how well does this principle of conservation vs. change fit with the modern view of Left and the Right? Not very well. This is a simplistic depiction of how many perceive the political spectrum today:

A common view of the political spectrum today.
A common view of the political spectrum today.

The first thing you should notice is that the Nazis are shown on the right along with Republicans and Conservatives. Does that make sense?

The goal of the historical German Nazis was to radically change the society of the Weimar Republic. They accomplished that by taking Germany from a democracy to an absolute totalitarian government where one’s only justification for existence was to serve the state and the Führer. The desire for radical change is a trademark of the Left.

Compare that to the Conservatives in the above diagram. Conservatives, among other things, want to conserve the principles of the United States Constitution with limited government power and protection of individual rights. There is a huge divide between the views of the Founders of the United States who created a government with intentionally limited power and the Nazis who created a ruthless, totalitarian regime.

The Communists, indisputably on the Left, also created a totalitarian government just as ruthless and murderous as the Nazis. By those standards we ought to take the Nazis in the diagram above and put them on the Left right next to the Communists (where they truly belong).

Continue reading “The Illusion of Left and Right – Part 2”

The Illusion of Left And Right

What goes where?

You probably think that politics can be neatly divided into two sides. There is the Left and there is the Right. Everything has to fit in somewhere on that line. You probably think there is some clear and logical principle that will tell you where to put every political persuasion on that line.

A simple political spectrum

A lot of people do see it that way. 

The reality though is that things are not that simple. The reality of human thought and political belief can’t be captured on a single one-dimensional line. There are many dimensions by which we can measure political persuasions. 

Before we look at those other dimensions we need to understand where this one came from. It is a surprisingly simple story.

Left & Right came from where people sat.

The terms “Left” and “Right” in politics came from where people sat in the French National Assembly leading up to the French Revolution in 1789. Those who supported the rights and privileges of the King, the aristocracy, and the clergy were on the right of the president  (the “Right Wing”). Those who were on the left (the “Left Wing”), angered by those same privileges for the elite sought to establish a more egalitarian society. 

That happened over two centuries ago. So how did that work out? 

It didn’t end well.

Not very well actually. The First Republic dates to 1792. In 1793 they executed King Louis XVI. The dictatorship of the Committee of Public Safety and the Reign of Terror soon followed with some 17,000 public executions. As many as 10,000 died in prison without a trial. Historians don’t agree on the count in the Vendee Genocide, numbers ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. After interminable turmoil, Napoleon Bonaparte took control in 1799, and was declared Emperor in 1804. This led to the Napoleonic Wars that finally ended in 1815 with the final defeat of Napoleon.

The French Revolution started out with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It ended with a bloodbath, dictatorship, and wars that decimated France and Europe. 

Continue reading “The Illusion of Left And Right”