[Youden]

Not true. See the record $2.7b fine Google got for promoting Google Shopping results in its search results.

Also see why: For leveraging a dominant position in one market (search) to intrude on another market (shopping).

This looks suspiciously similar. Google is leveraging a dominant position in search engines to intrude on the browser market.

[joeshmoe24]

I'm talking about the US where google is also protected by the first amendment and not the bizarro world logic the EU uses to justify their protectionism (how are shopping ads different than any other search ads?!).

[personjerry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

"The Sherman Act broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market."

For example, squashing competition by deleting your competitors search results might be interpreted as an attempt to monopolize the market.

In the context of providing a marketplace (i.e. the App Store), we aren't really looking at "private free speech" any more and so the first amendment does not apply here.

[joeshmoe24]

Yes it does: https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f...

The worst thing about antitrust threads on HN is idiots trying to appear knowledgeable by skimming a Wikipedia article.

[personjerry]

That's an interesting case that I was not aware of.

I think your attitude is suboptimal here.