[frgtpsswrdlame]

>All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state

How has google derived monopolistic power through the state?

[alexanderstears]

Google can afford to break the law, small businesses can't.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/googles-1-billion-fine-what-...

Google broke the law because it was profitable to do so and I'd wager that google came out ahead even after the fine.

To the extent that we make it lucrative to break the law, we favor those who can afford the punishment over those who can't.

[belovedeagle]

I have been assured by innumerable statists that the government invented the internet.

But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.

[andrepd]

You're not sure in what market is Google a monopoly? Searches, for one, internet video as well... If the trend continues, web browsers as well (Chrome is fast approaching the level of usage share as IE at its peak).

[belovedeagle]

Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.

[andrepd]

Google doesn't participate in the search engine market. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

[jgmjgm]

Anti-trust laws are about leveraging your monopoly in one area of the economy in order to gain an advantage in another.

There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly per se as long as it was gained and maintained fairly.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

And by "fairly" you mean literally any business tactic which does not rely on the government?