Destroying a great US institution is not in the national interest. Cases like these should never be permissible in the first place.

▲

krunck 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a great US institution

So, too big to fail, but to small to be a monopoly that abuses it's power?

▲

mpalczewski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

who is to say that it is great. what makes it so, why is that valuable. Is doing more good than harm. that there is even some inherent value in a "great institution". A bunch of smaller companies would probably be better economically and be more innovative.

▲

johndhi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm more on your side than most but surely you don't think zero antitrust enforcement is best for our country?

▲

btmiller 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> colincowardly

Appropriate last name. So any institution that lies, cheats, and steals their way to top is absolved of all wrongdoing just because they got to the top?

▲

CincinnatiMan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I kinda somewhat reluctantly agree with you, and I think other commenters are missing the point that breaking up Google may allow non-US competitors to rise up and take Google's place on the world stage. Thus, breaking them up is not in the national interest of the US.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If Alphabet allows a non-US competitor to replace them, isn't it their fault for failing to compete? The threat of replacement is supposed to be what motivates Alphabet to innovate.

It could also be argued that allowing Alphabet to sustain anticompetitive damages is exactly what creates the opportunity for them to be replaced. Alternatives to AdSense and YouTube can only succeed in America if Alphabet rests on their laurels and is artificially defended from natural price competition.

▲

Georgelemental 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign. Powerful monopolists restricting our freedoms is not in the interest of Americans long-term.

▲

CincinnatiMan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign

How do you prevent another monopoly from forming from a different country than your own?

	▲	Georgelemental 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Same way you prevent monopolies based in your own country from forming. Anti-trust regulation. Your country's government controls how companies operate inside it

▲

svachalek 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ah yes, the great US institution of ad tech. Mass privacy intrusion in the service of selling clicks for a nickel.

	▲	Natfan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Stalin wishes he had this much reach

▲

al_borland 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Capitalism requires some level of regulation to avoid eating itself.

▲

deaton 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So because Google monopolizes on a big enough scale, suddenly they are too important to break up? I would argue that if any single company is big enough to where if it were to break up it would be "against the national interest," then it is too big and must be broken up.

▲

cyberax 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies like modern Google should not be permissible in the even firster place.

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bring back Ma Bell and Standard Oil they were great US institutions!

	▲	wbl 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Standard Oil was sued for keeping low prices thanks to vertical integration prompting the classic quip about antitrust litigation.