[majormajor]

> Additionally, it always seems to me that actions like Google's are fine until a company becomes to big, at which point it is suddenly decided that it is unfair. Why do we even care about fairness now? Nothing about the resources one has at one's disposal ever seems fair in business. It all seems very arbitrary.

We should probably approach it differently. Instead of targeting specific companies, implement policies to hinder all companies from growing massive.

The larger the company, the greater the power. The greater the power, the larger the impact of any possible abuses. So to prevent abuses that people can't work around easily, prevent the companies from getting too big in the first place.

Is there anything morally superior about small companies? Not really. But large companies have power inherent to their size, so we can try to level the playing field at least to balance out that power. Take away the power, reintroduce alternatives to the market, and everyone is incentivized to behave better.

[chii]

But a large company also have drawbacks - like the lack of agility and bureaucracy and inefficiency.

If the small company really were truly better (and by a large magnitude), they would have a chance. After all, how did google beat the original behemoth of yahoo?

[DaLan23]

I love your idea. It is an attempt of doing what politicians should try to do more often: not look at individual issues in an isolated manner, bit rather think about how to prevent them structurally by improving the system itself!!