[passwordoops]

You're right that the company and execs are behaving exactly as they should given the regulatory environment that existed since the 1980s. Namely, do not stand in the way of consolidation and only consider consumer prices for anti-Trust evaluations.

Unfortunately that's a fundamentally anti-capitalist way to go about things because the end result is what Google, and frankly all other dominant, publicly traded corporations are doing right now: profit by increasing rent-seeking and strangling competition rather than out-innovate (e.g 1, for perspective Google's cost of remaining the default search engine is about on par for their average R&D spend; in a healthy, thriving, innovative environment that wouldn't be the case).

The problem isn't Google per se, they're acting as expected. It's the regulatory capture of the judiciary and FTC from ignoring and/or dismantling the laws that would have prevented this environment from occurring in the first place. So we don't have a vibrant, diverse ecosystem anywhere, whether search, washing machines, publishing, defense contractors, etc.

Luckily the tide is turning with the Google trial on right now, and Amazon kicking off soon.

(1) https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrus...

[kubb]

Do you think there should be regulation preventing consolidation in other areas, like land ownership?

[passwordoops]

What does that have to do with enforcing already-existing anti-trust regulation? Anti-trust regulation, mind you, that helped the US mobilize for WW2 and led directly to a golden age for American innovation, standard of living and defeated the Soviets?