[Shivetya]

I am not a fan of the "Right to be forgotten" but I am an even less happy with the idea that just because they are so good are providing searching that somehow they aren't allowed to favor their own interests. Are we to treat them as a utility or such simply because they spent the time and effort to become so good?

[slazaro]

With great power comes great responsibility, right? If you're not operating ethically and it affects billions of people, I don't think it's out of the question to expect some accountability for your actions.

[GoToRO]

The problem is that they say the results are organic, while they are not. So this fraud.

[dragonwriter]

In antitrust law pretty much everywhere, including the US, achieving a certain degree of dominance in a market makes anticompetitive actions which would otherwise be legal become illegal for you in order to prevent leverage dominance in one market to prevent free competition in another market. The details vary by jurisdiction, of course, but this, in broad outline, is not a difference between the US and EU.

[ebbv]

Framing it that way ignores that Google has always presented its rankings as fair. If they had always been up front about giving an unfair advantage to their own sites then that would have possibly changed history and opened up space for a competitor who did nothing but search. But Google has always presented itself as benign and benevolent. That misrepresentation is a real issue.

[thesehands]

It is such a strange argument from the EU. The strongest form of Tall Poppy syndrome.