[rattlesnakedave]

What do they have a monopoly on? The claim that Google, or any FAANG company is a monopoly is absurd. A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Google definitionally doesn’t have that, because competitors exist.

[inapis]

While definitely not a monopoly under the contemporary definition, I do not find it hard to believe that these companies are having an outsized influence on markets, society and politics. They end up having monopolistic effects without actually being a monopoly.

Case in point, it’s extremely hard to get discovered on internet without paying google/Facebook. Even if you are not running ads, google can wipe out a significant chunk of your internet traffic with their algorithm changes. Or google’s insane policy for Android OEM manufactures (which EU took a notice of). Amazon controls your retail presence - you can’t have cheaper products anywhere else. If you have a particularly popular product, Amazon will make its own version.

The average consumer still has an abundance of choice and low prices so the current market powers of these companies do not fit the definition of monopoly that was applied to Microsoft in the 90s. I think there needs to be another word or the definition of a monopoly needs to be updated. These companies still have an influence which teeters close the impact created by historical monopolies.

[lallysingh]

There's no law against that, and we (USA) try to be a country of law.

[ionised]

That's why you add new laws to prohibit things you find damaging to society.

[inapis]

I am not saying nor implying that what the Big 4-5 are doing is illegal. I'm merely noting that these companies have an outsized influence and the ability to force the markets to behave in specific ways, not all of which are beneficial to society.

There doesn't have to be a law, for an individual or organisation, to notice and opine that these companies DO have an impact which would be very hard to achieve in free and fair markets. Law usually follows disruptive innovation and capitalism and capitalists generally try to run circles around policy making.

[istjohn]

A company can have competition and still have a monopoly.

>> Undertakings possessing market share that is lower than 100% but over 90% had also been found dominant, for example, Microsoft v Commission case.[78] In the AKZO v Commission case,[79] the undertaking is presumed to be dominant if it has a market share of 50%. There are also findings of dominance that are below a market share of 50%, for instance, United Brands v Commission,[74] it only possessed a market share of 40% to 45% and still to be found dominant with other factors. The lowest yet market share of a company considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.

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

[dredmorbius]

Monopolies may be divided into four kinds.

I. Where the monopolist lies not the exclusive power of production but only certain exclusive facilities as a producer, and can increase, with imdimimished or even increased facility, the amount of his produce....

II. A second kind of monopoly is in the opposite extreme. It exists where price is checked neither by the hopes nor by the fears of the producer, where no competition is dreaded, and no increased supply can be effected. The owners of some vinyards have such a monopoly....

III. A third and more frequent kind of monopoly lies between these two extremes, and is neither so strict as the last, nor so comparatively open as the first. This comprises those cases in which the monopolist is the only producer, but, by the application of additional labow and abstinence, can indefinitely increase his production. The book trade affords an illustration....

IV. The fourth and last class of monopolies exists where production must be assisted by natural agents, limited in number, and varying in power, and repaying with less and less relative assistance every increase in the amount of the labour and abstinence bestowed on them.

-- Nassau William Senior, An Outline Of The Science Of Political Economy, (1836, 1872) pp. 103-106.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59405/page/n11...

[beenBoutIT]

It's clear that for some people Google has become synonymous with "the Internet".

[quixquaxqux]

Wouldn't it need to be "the internet" for _all_ people to be a monopoly?

[MajorBee]

I don't necessarily see Google as having a monopoly over the internet, but more as "The Gatekeeper" to the internet. Most people around the world go through Google if they're trying to reach somewhere (especially if they don't already have the target site bookmarked). The fact that they're the de-facto curators of content gives them enormous influence over people's perception of the internet.

The question is, do we want a largely unregulated private corporation to hold that much sway over entire populations?

[beenBoutIT]

There is no legitimate way to regulate tech, it's an optional thing that people can use or not use. Right now there are people who go out of their way to avoid using Google and they manage to keep their jobs and even get to work using less attractive open source map apps. The practice of regulating tech exists right now in China and unlike communism there's a real possibility of it spreading.

[50656E6973]

No, there's never been a company x which was y "for _all_ people".

A monopoly is typically deemed so when it has inordinate power, no serious competition, and can increase costs without needing to increase quality