[ucaetano]

> I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

Can you point to a clear case of consumer harm?

Antitrust doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist to protect companies, but consumers. Ad prices have gone down, service prices have gone down, product prices have gone down.

[mercutio2]

The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) a bit over the last few decades. They’ve applied their powers barely at all to monopsony during the same time period, but I don’t think there’s nearly as broad agreement as you imply that those powers shouldn’t be applied to monopsony.

[ucaetano]

> The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm)

Those two aren't necessarily related. From an economic (and therefore a regulator's) perspective, a monopoly means being able to extract monopolist prices from the market. That hasn't happened in the tech industry.

The prices that matter (ad prices) have been going down dramatically over the years, with plenty of competition. The issue comes up every year at Google's and Facebook's earning calls.

There is no economic monopoly. There could potentially be one in the layman's use of the word and in specific markets.

This is similar to looking at Coke. There are markets (Brazil, for example) where Coke controls >95% of the cola market. Some would say it is a monopoly, but they are missing the point that the cola market doesn't exist in isolation, as it competes with the overall soda market, water, alcoholic beverages, and even the guy on the traffic light selling bags of orange.