[fyoving]

Luckily for Google in the US the grievances of a company's enemies/competitors don't count for much.

I'll credit the WSJ for counting themselves among those enemies, but what I find vexing with all these reports is the constant and casual mentions of "breaking up" these companies as though it's a viable and realistic outcome which it isn't and any self respecting publication should present things in the proper context.

[ma2rten]

The problem with breaking up google is that the vast majority of revenue and profits comes from search ads. You can't break up search ads from search.

[darkpuma]

Is youtube still being operated at a loss? If google runs a video sharing platform at or near a loss, funded by cash they get from search ads, then how can any other company possibly compete with them? By also running a video sharing platform at or near a loss? There is a very small number of companies that could conceivably do that.

This is precisely why google needs to be broken up.

[v7p1Qbt1im]

By your logic there would be no YouTube. Or no user generated video at all. I imagine most people (including me) wouldn‘t like that.

[darkpuma]

> "By your logic there would be no YouTube."

In it's current form, no, and I'm fine with that. I'd like to see what a self-sustaining youtube alternative looks like. The status quo is not divine providence.

[v7p1Qbt1im]

> I'd like to see what a self-sustaining youtube alternative looks like.

What does that even mean? Clearly another platform of similar popularity would end up heaving the exact same problems.

[erklik]

> I'd like to see what a self-sustaining youtube alternative looks like.

Could one even exist while Youtube does?