That's not the only reason though? For example, Google "abused its market dominance by imposing a number of restrictive clauses in contracts with third-party websites which prevented Google's rivals from placing their search adverts on these websites" [0]. Facebook "has maintained its position by acquiring, copying or killing its competitors" [1].
The quoted statement seems to miss the point, which is that anti-competitive behaviour reduces the choice of the consumer. Of course they choose to use those services: they don't have much recourse to alternatives.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-committee-fa...
As far as end-users are concerned, there absolutely are alternatives: Bing and DuckDuckGo.
It doesn’t really matter that they have low market share, there isn’t really a structural switching cost. You just have to enter a different URL in the address bar. Google obviously has the “best” results, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly. That just makes it the best out of a few options, and the market share largely reflects that.
Ben Thompson addresses that point in his article, too:
> Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriating is the fact it is true.
Google is arguably an anti-competitive monopsony, not a monopoly. Ben Thompson argues that our laws today don’t handle monopsonies well enough, owing to the consumer welfare standard.
We're talking about end users, because openly admitting that end users are objects in the trade between companies risk opening a bigger can of worms.
> As far as end-users are concerned, there absolutely are alternatives: Bing and DuckDuckGo.
First, it's like choosing between two communication providers, both of which know there is no other choice and silently split market between them. I think a good idea would be to look at 20+% of market with suspicion, and act accordingly. Give me at least 5 - and in practice, more - options to choose, made so that it's nearly impossible for them to cooperate - then we can talk about freedom of choice.
Second, having alternative doesn't create a non-monopoly. If AMD had a smaller market share, Intel would be in much hotter water as recently as a decade ago. Google maintains share by a variety of ways, including app store, mobile OS, agreements for pre-installation etc. - all different actions aimed at maintaining the lead. Microsoft worked this way in around 1990-s, even though technically not only they wrote software.
This is an opinion.
Exxon and coal executives are personally responsible for a substantial part of global climate disruption. Paint executives are responsible for deliberately poisoning hundreds of millions of children. Tobacco executives got millions of children addicted to nicotine. Coke and Pepsi are poisoning whole generations. Yet, the most we seem able to do is fine shareholders, when shareholders really have hardly any say in what companies do. A nut job who shoots up a bus station triggers a nationwide manhunt, yet these rich bastards kill by the millions, wholesale, and more horribly, and are allowed to retire to their yachts. It would not take much prosecution to bring about a sea change in how corporate executives behave.
If you tell me your job, I could also make up ridiculous reasons about how you're personally responsible for starving children, or destroying the environment, or putting the public's safety at risk.
If you want regulation, pass laws. Don't go starting corporate witch-hunts by politically motivated completely unaccountable prosectors.
You can't participate in civil society if your only solution to problems is "let's throw everyone in jail for doing things I don't like!" And the outrageous unhinged rhetoric: "poising children", "killing millions", and "destroying the planet"... it's obvious what type of leader you'd be if you ever got any power.
It was known for decades that lead in paint was poisoning everyone. Paint maufacturers persuaded US Congress not to ban lead in paint in the '40s, promising to "phase it out". In 1973 Congress finally banned lead in paint because manufacturers had done exactly nothing in 3+ decades.
The crime waves of the 20th century exactly track (with a ~20 year latency) exposure to lead, so not just cancer and lower IQ, but thousands of violent deaths resulted, knowingly.
We have known, for certain, since 1957, that trans fats in shortening and margarine were major causes of heart failure. They were not scheduled to be out of the food supply until 2017, and some manufacturers have got extensions into, thus far, 2021. ("We still have poison in the pipeline we would like to sell all of before we switch.")
If it makes a profit, it doesn't matter who is harmed?
Putting people in prison for their part in killing millions of people is properly part of civil society. We call it law enforcement.
You seem to suggest laws must not be enforced if rich people might face enforcement? Who is really unhinged, here?
