[sa46]

That reason is no worse than the inverse reasoning: gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future.

Also, I think the reasoning is independent of the specific situation. Working at $PLACE could benefit the poster. So the poster wants to see $PLACE continue to have a bright future. Seems like a standard argument for capitalism and the free-flow of human capital to better jobs.

I understand there are externalities that affect this specific situation, hence the investigation, but since it's not clear there's antitrust behavior, it seems premature to classify the reasoning as bad.

[HillaryBriss]

> gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future.

what about gleefully supporting the investigation because it will create opportunities for competition, create room for other small companies to have at least a fighting chance at success?