US government considers a breakup of Google

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/tech/us-government-considers-a-breakup-of-google/index.html

For the first time since AT&T was dismantled into Baby Bells four decades ago, the US government is weighing the breakup of one of the world’s largest and most consequential monopolies: Google.

The US Department of Justice in a court filing Tuesday night said it may recommend dismantling Google’s core businesses, separating Google’s search business from Android, Chrome and the Google Play app store.

“That would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants,” the government said in its court filing.



I think there are pros and cons to this.

The Pros are pretty obvious, Google leverages other things you do in Chrome, The Play Store, and Android devices to tailor and drive search results, as well as "make our stuff the default" contracts with other big names, for profit-motives in ways that could make it more difficult for other competitors to get a foot in the door. That obviously does present some legal questions.


The Cons (as Google laid out in their response) do have some validity. If Google is forced break apart and open up certain features and functionality to competitors (that allow for the type of seamless integration that consumers have become accustomed to), that does create some data security concerns. Data Transfer can be like a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, the more times you pick it up to move it, the more chances you have for things to leak out the bottom. And for whatever it's worth, I don't know that I'd trust the security mechanisms of a "new market entrant" to be on-par with that of Google in-terms of preventing hacks and breaches.

For example: One the things they want to do is break apart the Play Store from the rest of Google so that "new market entrants" can have more opportunities to compete in that space. If some (albeit well-intentioned) 10-man dev shop decided they were going to make their own easily accessible app store (that has all kinds of elevated access to your device by necessity), are you going to trust them to have the same data protection and malicious software screening process that Google has?


From my own perspective, I would say that given the circumstances, perhaps break up the "default to using our stuff" quasi-exclusivity contracts they have with other companies, but allow Google to retain Android, Chrome, and the Play Store under their umbrella and ecosystem.

 

[Whyayeman]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/tech/us-government-considers-a-breakup-of-google/index.html

For the first time since AT&T was dismantled into Baby Bells four decades ago, the US government is weighing the breakup of one of the world’s largest and most consequential monopolies: Google.

The US Department of Justice in a court filing Tuesday night said it may recommend dismantling Google’s core businesses, separating Google’s search business from Android, Chrome and the Google Play app store.

“That would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants,” the government said in its court filing.



I think there are pros and cons to this.

The Pros are pretty obvious, Google leverages other things you do in Chrome, The Play Store, and Android devices to tailor and drive search results, as well as "make our stuff the default" contracts with other big names, for profit-motives in ways that could make it more difficult for other competitors to get a foot in the door. That obviously does present some legal questions.


The Cons (as Google laid out in their response) do have some validity. If Google is forced break apart and open up certain features and functionality to competitors (that allow for the type of seamless integration that consumers have become accustomed to), that does create some data security concerns. Data Transfer can be like a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, the more times you pick it up to move it, the more chances you have for things to leak out the bottom. And for whatever it's worth, I don't know that I'd trust the security mechanisms of a "new market entrant" to be on-par with that of Google in-terms of preventing hacks and breaches.

For example: One the things they want to do is break apart the Play Store from the rest of Google so that "new market entrants" can have more opportunities to compete in that space. If some (albeit well-intentioned) 10-man dev shop decided they were going to make their own easily accessible app store (that has all kinds of elevated access to your device by necessity), are you going to trust them to have the same data protection and malicious software screening process that Google has?


From my own perspective, I would say that given the circumstances, perhaps break up the "default to using our stuff" quasi-exclusivity contracts they have with other companies, but allow Google to retain Android, Chrome, and the Play Store under their umbrella and ecosystem.

I think Google probably constitutes a monopoly by discouraging competition. There are alternatives but Google dominates the internet. Isn't that bad for competition?

Fear of any security issues should not prevent a proper investigation of google's monopoly position. If customers are worried about the level of security offered by competitors they can still opt for the company they have trusted for years and put up with the pressure to use other devices under the same ownership.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think Google probably constitutes a monopoly by discouraging competition. There are alternatives but Google dominates the internet. Isn't that bad for competition?

Fear of any security issues should not prevent a proper investigation of google's monopoly position. If customers are worried about the level of security offered by competitors they can still opt for the company they have trusted for years and put up with the pressure to use other devices under the same ownership.

I don't know that they necessarily discourage competition...I think their search engine product quality of their other holdings is what drives move of the market share to them.

But what you're describing is basically what I stated. Squash the exclusivity contracts (for instance, no longer allow them to make their stuff the "default" on other companies' offerings), but allow them to retain ownership of Chrome/Android/Play Store.

But it seems the government wants to take things a little further than that in this particular instance.


...it should be noted however, that if some sort of high-profile event (like a contentious election, or a pandemic) were to occur, and government entities want to go on a "combat misinformation" mission again, they're hamstringing themselves by doing this. Not necessarily because "Google will be bitter about this, and will no longer be helpful" but because this will largely remove Google's ability to be a "helpful partner" should one want to embark on one of those endeavors.

It could create some "strange bedfellows" situations. As this sort of "break-up" of google would likely be popular from an economic populism perspective among the left, but the "losing the ability to combat misinformation" will likely not be so popular with the left... and among the right, those two will likely be the inverse.

For instance, when Senate called up the CEOs and "encouraged" them to make provisions that deprioritized certain results for anti-vaccine material or election denialism, or subpoena certain email records, or remove certain apps like Parler from the app markets after it was used to help coordinate the Jan 6th riots, the reason why a measure like that had the ability be even remotely "effective" is because so many people were consolidated within one data ecosystem and product suite.

If/when that ever occurs again, and should the government gets what they want out of this case, they're not going to be able to do that anymore in the future.

Senator: "What can you, as the leader of Google, do to help combat some of this misinformation we're seeing and help us reign this in?"
CEO: "Nothing, because now 1/3 of the population is using a variety of things like ProtonMail, DuckDuckGo, Signal, and random apk installers from all over the world"

While I don't see the government "stepping on the rake" in terms of inadvertently limiting their own censorship ability as a "con" (my main concerns, as noted before, are in the realm of data security), I mention this because I suspect that some folks who like the economic aspect of this, may see that as a "con" should the government ever want to do a "misinformation crackdown" again.

 

[Whyayeman]

It is the Department of Justice that is considering the break-up of google. I don't really see it as a partisan attack. Everybody is at risk from monopolies. Aren't monopolies inherently bad in a capitalist economy?

I don't see it as a left/right issue. There is nothing left wing about preventing unfairness in the market.

 

[Arcangl86]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/tech/us-government-considers-a-breakup-of-google/index.html

For the first time since AT&T was dismantled into Baby Bells four decades ago, the US government is weighing the breakup of one of the world’s largest and most consequential monopolies: Google.

The US Department of Justice in a court filing Tuesday night said it may recommend dismantling Google’s core businesses, separating Google’s search business from Android, Chrome and the Google Play app store.

“That would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants,” the government said in its court filing.



I think there are pros and cons to this.

The Pros are pretty obvious, Google leverages other things you do in Chrome, The Play Store, and Android devices to tailor and drive search results, as well as "make our stuff the default" contracts with other big names, for profit-motives in ways that could make it more difficult for other competitors to get a foot in the door. That obviously does present some legal questions.


The Cons (as Google laid out in their response) do have some validity. If Google is forced break apart and open up certain features and functionality to competitors (that allow for the type of seamless integration that consumers have become accustomed to), that does create some data security concerns. Data Transfer can be like a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, the more times you pick it up to move it, the more chances you have for things to leak out the bottom. And for whatever it's worth, I don't know that I'd trust the security mechanisms of a "new market entrant" to be on-par with that of Google in-terms of preventing hacks and breaches.

For example: One the things they want to do is break apart the Play Store from the rest of Google so that "new market entrants" can have more opportunities to compete in that space. If some (albeit well-intentioned) 10-man dev shop decided they were going to make their own easily accessible app store (that has all kinds of elevated access to your device by necessity), are you going to trust them to have the same data protection and malicious software screening process that Google has?


From my own perspective, I would say that given the circumstances, perhaps break up the "default to using our stuff" quasi-exclusivity contracts they have with other companies, but allow Google to retain Android, Chrome, and the Play Store under their umbrella and ecosystem.

Honestly, I believe all of the Big FIve tech companies should be broken up for multiple reasons. But Alphabet is an especially strong case, especially for its domination of all aspects of the mobile market. They create hardware, software you run on it and the marketplace to access that software. The marketplace peace is the most important because it means it can keep out non-Alphabet competitors. A good example of this is Amazon needing to create it's own version of Android to run on the FIre tablet because Alphabet wouldn't give it access to the commercial version.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is the Department of Justice that is considering the break-up of google. I don't really see it as a partisan attack. Everybody is at risk from monopolies. Aren't monopolies inherently bad in a capitalist economy?

I don't see it as a left/right issue. There is nothing left wing about preventing unfairness in the market.

No, to clarify, I'm not saying is that it's a partisan attack...

I'm saying that partisan people will likely have a love/hate relationship with the outcome of the proposed way the government wants to break them up.

Highly partisan people on the left will likely love the economic implications of this (but be crying the blues when government entities will no longer be able to effectively "target misinformation" in any meaningful way). With covid and the election controversy, the government only had to "strongly nudge" 2 or 3 companies in the direction of taking certain actions because that effectively covered 90% of the marketplace. That would not be the case post-breakup

Highly partisan people on the right will likely hate the government interference in "the market" (but enjoy the fact that they can install apps like Parler whenever they'd like with few barriers, and have much easier access to election denial echo-chamber material on-demand without having to go to page 83 of the search results to find it).


In all honesty, I think a break-up of "big tech" would end up being a bigger win for the partisan right than the partisan left.

The partisan left gets a feel good moment of "haha, a greedy CEO had their privilege checked!"

The partisan right will get expanded, easier access to the kind of materials that the Google/Apple/Meta have been actively trying to tamp down (with the nudging of government entities)

The CEO of google won't have the same level of power as before (economically speaking)...that also means when that Senate phone call comes in saying "Hey, there's these conspiracy theories starting to circulate saying that an election was stolen, or that this candidate is running a human trafficking ring out of a pizza shop, and implying that violence is the answer, what can you do to help us make sure that we don't have tens of millions people getting exposed to this radicalizing content?" The answer will be "well, not a helluva lot...they're organizing and circulating these things through apps/channels/and search results that we don't control"

 

[essentialsaltes]

DOJ seeks forced sale of Chrome, other big changes at Google in monopoly case​

The Justice Department is seeking to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser and make other major changes to remedy its illegal search monopoly, prosecutors told a Washington court Wednesday, setting a marker in the landmark case before the incoming Trump administration makes its own determinations about how to proceed.

“Google must promptly and fully divest Chrome, to a buyer approved by the Plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the Court and Plaintiffs approve,” the Justice Department said in its proposed final judgment.

Justice Department prosecutors said in the filing that they are also seeking for the court to require Google to stop favoring its own services in its popular Android mobile operating system, or to be forced to sell off Android as well.

--
[Unclear what Trump may want to (or be able) to do, but at least he has the interests of American citizens foremost on his mind. Well, one American citizen.]

“What you can do without breaking it up is make sure that it’s more fair,” Trump said, adding that he had called “the head of Google” recently to complain that more “bad” stories than “good” stories about himself were showing up in Google’s news results. “I think it’s a whole rigged deal.”

 

[durangodawood]

No, to clarify, I'm not saying is that it's a partisan attack......

But do you think this break up proposal will die under the new DoJ we're about to get?

 

[mindlight]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/tech/us-government-considers-a-breakup-of-google/index.html

For the first time since AT&T was dismantled into Baby Bells four decades ago, the US government is weighing the breakup of one of the world’s largest and most consequential monopolies: Google.

The US Department of Justice in a court filing Tuesday night said it may recommend dismantling Google’s core businesses, separating Google’s search business from Android, Chrome and the Google Play app store.

“That would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features — including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence — over rivals or new entrants,” the government said in its court filing.



I think there are pros and cons to this.

The Pros are pretty obvious, Google leverages other things you do in Chrome, The Play Store, and Android devices to tailor and drive search results, as well as "make our stuff the default" contracts with other big names, for profit-motives in ways that could make it more difficult for other competitors to get a foot in the door. That obviously does present some legal questions.


The Cons (as Google laid out in their response) do have some validity. If Google is forced break apart and open up certain features and functionality to competitors (that allow for the type of seamless integration that consumers have become accustomed to), that does create some data security concerns. Data Transfer can be like a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, the more times you pick it up to move it, the more chances you have for things to leak out the bottom. And for whatever it's worth, I don't know that I'd trust the security mechanisms of a "new market entrant" to be on-par with that of Google in-terms of preventing hacks and breaches.

For example: One the things they want to do is break apart the Play Store from the rest of Google so that "new market entrants" can have more opportunities to compete in that space. If some (albeit well-intentioned) 10-man dev shop decided they were going to make their own easily accessible app store (that has all kinds of elevated access to your device by necessity), are you going to trust them to have the same data protection and malicious software screening process that Google has?


From my own perspective, I would say that given the circumstances, perhaps break up the "default to using our stuff" quasi-exclusivity contracts they have with other companies, but allow Google to retain Android, Chrome, and the Play Store under their umbrella and ecosystem.

The article was dated in October when the Democrats still had a mandate for legal change. The incoming administration has been critical of Big Tech collaboration with the so-called Leftist Deep State so maybe they also would sponsor this. I can see why Google executives are scared about this.

1) It seems to be legally possible and indeed not without precedence (ATT) and there seem to be some grounds. It could be done using the Sherman Act Section 2, Clayton Act, and FTC Act. The EU has already sued Google for monopoly practices and won. The purchase of YouTube and DoubleClick were clear examples of buying out the competition.

2) Google is pretty good and provides access to information, communication tools and plenty of innovation and service. I would want to be sure that breaking them up did not jeopardize consumer possibilities or erode the quality of search, maps, etc.

3) Spiritually they are not good or evil just a useful tool in the hands of good or evil people, would whatever replaced them be better or worse is the key question there. However, if they influence truth-telling, this tends towards moral relativism rather than Christianity. They compromised with China soon enough with the great Firewall project there. If they had stood up to them maybe they could have argued the case of being an American company standing up for Western values against unfair Chinese regulation and competition but that ship has sailed. Chinese monopolies can be handled with tariffs and laws. The one case does not exclude the other