The Power of Google the Monopoly

[UpstateSCHokie]

Its becoming clear that Google and FB (and to a lesser extent Amazon) are becoming monopolies. And not the old school rail or oil monopolies, but monopolies that are far more dangerous because they control so much information. Don't we have anti-trust laws in this country?

It's interesting how these monopolies have aligned themselves with the political party that claims to be the champions of anti-trust laws. These companies are run by far left zealots who (I guess) believe they can insulate themselves from attacks from Democrats so long as they keep the dollars flowing and the virtues signaling.

FTR, I'm not sure that "nationalizing" a company is ever the answer, but I would be in favor of breaking up these companies (ala MA Bell) so that they are not so powerful and then passing legislation to make it easier for competitors to get in the market. I prefer more consumer choices to government control.

=========================================

Scholar says Google criticism cost him job: 'People are waking up to its power'
Thursday 31 August 2017 06.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 10.43 EDT

Every second of every day Google processes over 40,000 search queries – that’s about 3.5bn questions a day or 1.2tn a year. But there’s one question that Google apparently doesn’t want answered: is Google a monopoly?

Barry Lynn, until this week a senior fellow at Washington thinktank the New America Foundation, has spent years studying the growing power of tech giants like Google and Facebook. He believes the answer is yes. And that opinion, he argues, has cost him his job.

This week Lynn and his team were ousted from New America after the New York Times published emails that suggested Google was unhappy with his research. The tech giant, along with executive chairman Eric Schmidt, have donated $21m to New America since 1999. Schmidt chaired the organisation for years and its main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab”.
Google-funded thinktank fired scholar over criticism of tech firm
Read more

“I’ve been there for 15 years,” Lynn told the Guardian. “And for 14 everything was great. In the last year or so it has got more difficult. And from every piece of evidence that we are seeing that has to do with pressure from Google.

“Every day I see people waking up to the power of Google, Facebook and Amazon. We have to do something as a people, we have to do something through our government and address the power of these companies. The number of congressmen and others making statements on Capitol Hill about this is growing very rapidly. The number of businesses who are saying that something must be done about the power of these companies and the way they use their power.”

Google enjoyed a long honeymoon where it was seen as a force for good. But as fears over tech oligopolies grow, industry giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have found themselves the subject of greater scrutiny from governments and skeptics in academia.

Lynn, who ran New America’s Open Markets Initiative, said his problems began last June when the European Union fined Google a record €2.42bn ($2.7bn) for breaching antitrust rules and abusing its market dominance.

Lynn posted a brief note applauding the decision and calling on US regulators “to build upon this important precedent”. The post effectively ended his 15-year career at New America, he claims.

In a statement New America’s chief executive Anne-Marie Slaughter called the claims “absolutely false” and blamed Lynn’s “repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality” for the decision.

Google said it would “not be a fair characterization at all” to blame Google for the decision. “I can confirm that our funding levels for 2017 have not changed as a result of NAF’s June post, nor did Eric Schmidt ever threaten to cut off funding because of it,” a spokeswoman said via email.

But for Lynn and others, this was more than just an office spat with a thinktank backer or office politics gone wrong . It represents a threat to independent research at a time when companies like Google are consolidating their enormous power.

“Things started going wrong last summer,” Lynn told the Guardian. Open Markets began working with senator Elizabeth Warren to help her prepare a speech on America’s monopolies and what to do about them.

Google, Amazon and Facebook were platforms that could become tools “to snuff out competition,” Warren warned. “Anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”

Before the conference Slaughter’s response was to email Lynn, a correspondence which the New York Times obtained. “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just think about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Shortly after the Times story was published earlier this week, Lynn and his team were out.

New America had traditionally given its experts autonomy. “They could say what they wanted to say,” said Lynn. “We had these units of expertise and the tradition at New America was that you trusted these experts.”

Lynn said he would guess that Google’s attitude had changed for two reasons. First, Open Markets had been gained greater weight in the eyes of policymakers and enforcers. Second, regulators, especially in Europe, have clearly moved towards taking more action.

“Google is a very sophisticated team of people. They know how to spend their money and wield their influence in ways that usually get them what they want,” Lynn said. “In terms of researchers, the danger is that research and work writing about Google, about platform monopoly in general, work that should be be doing for the good of the American public will not be done.”
We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why

Marshall Steinbaum, research director and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, agrees. “On one level it is completely shocking that something like this has taken place, but it is also not surprising given the degree of market power these companies have.

“This is a huge issue in higher education policy. Given the diminished financing from state and federal sources, independent research has become more reliant on corporate sources,” he said. And with that comes strings.

Pressure for change is mounting. Luigi Zingalesm, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School, recently told the Financial Times that he and others believe antitrust laws should be reverted back to old laws that also limited political power – and in particular, continued the FT article, “the ability of rich companies and people in coastal areas to control everyone and everything else”.

Lynn has incorporated Open Markets Initiative as a separate entity and is working on launching a new thinktank. He said he hopes his new group will provide a platform for independent research into the power of companies like Google and Facebook.

“These effects are in so many corners of the political economy,” said Lynn.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... barry-lynn

[USN_Hokie]

Yep.

I wonder if Google/facebook would censor speech discussing the breaking up of Google /Facebook?

[nolanvt]

Conservatives coming to a realization that government checks may needed from time to time against private business is an interesting revelation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UpstateSCHokie]

Conservatives coming to a realization that government checks may needed from time to time against private business is an interesting revelation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When have conservatives been in favor of monopolies? As I said in my OP, I am in favor of breaking up monopolies and promoting free markets to compete with the smaller entities after the break up. The liberal "solution" is nationalize the monopoly.

If you think conservatives are in favor of monopolies, then you clearly don't understand conservatism.

[USN_Hokie]

Conservatives coming to a realization that government checks may needed from time to time against private business is an interesting revelation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When have conservatives been in favor of monopolies? As I said in my OP, I am in favor of breaking up monopolies and promoting free markets to compete with the smaller entities after the break up. The liberal "solution" is nationalize the monopoly.

If you think conservatives are in favor of monopolies, then you clearly don't understand conservatism.

Nolan is probably confusing libertarian and conservative strawmen.

This is what happens when government classes get replaced with condom on banana class in high school.

[awesome guy]

Even in that light, Nolan is a dope. There's no fix for stupid.

[HokieJoe]

Conservatives coming to a realization that government checks may needed from time to time against private business is an interesting revelation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shiiteposting again I see.

[HokieJoe]

If Microsoft met the standard for antitrust, Google certainly does. It's time to break up them up, and YouTube should be first in line for involuntary separation.

[TheH2]

If Microsoft met the standard for antitrust, Google certainly does. It's time to break up them up, and YouTube should be first in line for involuntary separation.

Isn't Microsoft a little interesting. It wasn't anti-trust that was their "demise". Quotes because they are still a very profitable company.

[TheH2]

Its becoming clear that Google and FB (and to a lesser extent Amazon) are becoming monopolies. And not the old school rail or oil monopolies, but monopolies that are far more dangerous because they control so much information. Don't we have anti-trust laws in this country?

It's interesting how these monopolies have aligned themselves with the political party that claims to be the champions of anti-trust laws. These companies are run by far left zealots who (I guess) believe they can insulate themselves from attacks from Democrats so long as they keep the dollars flowing and the virtues signaling.

FTR, I'm not sure that "nationalizing" a company is ever the answer, but I would be in favor of breaking up these companies (ala MA Bell) so that they are not so powerful and then passing legislation to make it easier for competitors to get in the market. I prefer more consumer choices to government control.

=========================================

Scholar says Google criticism cost him job: 'People are waking up to its power'
Thursday 31 August 2017 06.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 10.43 EDT

Every second of every day Google processes over 40,000 search queries – that’s about 3.5bn questions a day or 1.2tn a year. But there’s one question that Google apparently doesn’t want answered: is Google a monopoly?

Barry Lynn, until this week a senior fellow at Washington thinktank the New America Foundation, has spent years studying the growing power of tech giants like Google and Facebook. He believes the answer is yes. And that opinion, he argues, has cost him his job.

This week Lynn and his team were ousted from New America after the New York Times published emails that suggested Google was unhappy with his research. The tech giant, along with executive chairman Eric Schmidt, have donated $21m to New America since 1999. Schmidt chaired the organisation for years and its main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab”.
Google-funded thinktank fired scholar over criticism of tech firm
Read more

“I’ve been there for 15 years,” Lynn told the Guardian. “And for 14 everything was great. In the last year or so it has got more difficult. And from every piece of evidence that we are seeing that has to do with pressure from Google.

“Every day I see people waking up to the power of Google, Facebook and Amazon. We have to do something as a people, we have to do something through our government and address the power of these companies. The number of congressmen and others making statements on Capitol Hill about this is growing very rapidly. The number of businesses who are saying that something must be done about the power of these companies and the way they use their power.”

Google enjoyed a long honeymoon where it was seen as a force for good. But as fears over tech oligopolies grow, industry giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have found themselves the subject of greater scrutiny from governments and skeptics in academia.

Lynn, who ran New America’s Open Markets Initiative, said his problems began last June when the European Union fined Google a record €2.42bn ($2.7bn) for breaching antitrust rules and abusing its market dominance.

Lynn posted a brief note applauding the decision and calling on US regulators “to build upon this important precedent”. The post effectively ended his 15-year career at New America, he claims.

In a statement New America’s chief executive Anne-Marie Slaughter called the claims “absolutely false” and blamed Lynn’s “repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality” for the decision.

Google said it would “not be a fair characterization at all” to blame Google for the decision. “I can confirm that our funding levels for 2017 have not changed as a result of NAF’s June post, nor did Eric Schmidt ever threaten to cut off funding because of it,” a spokeswoman said via email.

But for Lynn and others, this was more than just an office spat with a thinktank backer or office politics gone wrong . It represents a threat to independent research at a time when companies like Google are consolidating their enormous power.

“Things started going wrong last summer,” Lynn told the Guardian. Open Markets began working with senator Elizabeth Warren to help her prepare a speech on America’s monopolies and what to do about them.

Google, Amazon and Facebook were platforms that could become tools “to snuff out competition,” Warren warned. “Anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”

Before the conference Slaughter’s response was to email Lynn, a correspondence which the New York Times obtained. “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just think about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Shortly after the Times story was published earlier this week, Lynn and his team were out.

New America had traditionally given its experts autonomy. “They could say what they wanted to say,” said Lynn. “We had these units of expertise and the tradition at New America was that you trusted these experts.”

Lynn said he would guess that Google’s attitude had changed for two reasons. First, Open Markets had been gained greater weight in the eyes of policymakers and enforcers. Second, regulators, especially in Europe, have clearly moved towards taking more action.

“Google is a very sophisticated team of people. They know how to spend their money and wield their influence in ways that usually get them what they want,” Lynn said. “In terms of researchers, the danger is that research and work writing about Google, about platform monopoly in general, work that should be be doing for the good of the American public will not be done.”
We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why

Marshall Steinbaum, research director and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, agrees. “On one level it is completely shocking that something like this has taken place, but it is also not surprising given the degree of market power these companies have.

“This is a huge issue in higher education policy. Given the diminished financing from state and federal sources, independent research has become more reliant on corporate sources,” he said. And with that comes strings.

Pressure for change is mounting. Luigi Zingalesm, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School, recently told the Financial Times that he and others believe antitrust laws should be reverted back to old laws that also limited political power – and in particular, continued the FT article, “the ability of rich companies and people in coastal areas to control everyone and everything else”.

Lynn has incorporated Open Markets Initiative as a separate entity and is working on launching a new thinktank. He said he hopes his new group will provide a platform for independent research into the power of companies like Google and Facebook.

“These effects are in so many corners of the political economy,” said Lynn.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... barry-lynn

This is a great topic and one I've been meaning to post on for a while. Anti-trust law is antiquated. The anti-trust legislation focuses on harm to consumers with a focus on prices. Under the current framework it is hard to attack Google, and other internet firms. Europe is trying though.

[WestEndHokie39]

Its becoming clear that Google and FB (and to a lesser extent Amazon) are becoming monopolies. And not the old school rail or oil monopolies, but monopolies that are far more dangerous because they control so much information. Don't we have anti-trust laws in this country?

It's interesting how these monopolies have aligned themselves with the political party that claims to be the champions of anti-trust laws. These companies are run by far left zealots who (I guess) believe they can insulate themselves from attacks from Democrats so long as they keep the dollars flowing and the virtues signaling.

FTR, I'm not sure that "nationalizing" a company is ever the answer, but I would be in favor of breaking up these companies (ala MA Bell) so that they are not so powerful and then passing legislation to make it easier for competitors to get in the market. I prefer more consumer choices to government control.

=========================================

Scholar says Google criticism cost him job: 'People are waking up to its power'
Thursday 31 August 2017 06.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 10.43 EDT

Every second of every day Google processes over 40,000 search queries – that’s about 3.5bn questions a day or 1.2tn a year. But there’s one question that Google apparently doesn’t want answered: is Google a monopoly?

Barry Lynn, until this week a senior fellow at Washington thinktank the New America Foundation, has spent years studying the growing power of tech giants like Google and Facebook. He believes the answer is yes. And that opinion, he argues, has cost him his job.

This week Lynn and his team were ousted from New America after the New York Times published emails that suggested Google was unhappy with his research. The tech giant, along with executive chairman Eric Schmidt, have donated $21m to New America since 1999. Schmidt chaired the organisation for years and its main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab”.
Google-funded thinktank fired scholar over criticism of tech firm
Read more

“I’ve been there for 15 years,” Lynn told the Guardian. “And for 14 everything was great. In the last year or so it has got more difficult. And from every piece of evidence that we are seeing that has to do with pressure from Google.

“Every day I see people waking up to the power of Google, Facebook and Amazon. We have to do something as a people, we have to do something through our government and address the power of these companies. The number of congressmen and others making statements on Capitol Hill about this is growing very rapidly. The number of businesses who are saying that something must be done about the power of these companies and the way they use their power.”

Google enjoyed a long honeymoon where it was seen as a force for good. But as fears over tech oligopolies grow, industry giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have found themselves the subject of greater scrutiny from governments and skeptics in academia.

Lynn, who ran New America’s Open Markets Initiative, said his problems began last June when the European Union fined Google a record €2.42bn ($2.7bn) for breaching antitrust rules and abusing its market dominance.

Lynn posted a brief note applauding the decision and calling on US regulators “to build upon this important precedent”. The post effectively ended his 15-year career at New America, he claims.

In a statement New America’s chief executive Anne-Marie Slaughter called the claims “absolutely false” and blamed Lynn’s “repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality” for the decision.

Google said it would “not be a fair characterization at all” to blame Google for the decision. “I can confirm that our funding levels for 2017 have not changed as a result of NAF’s June post, nor did Eric Schmidt ever threaten to cut off funding because of it,” a spokeswoman said via email.

But for Lynn and others, this was more than just an office spat with a thinktank backer or office politics gone wrong . It represents a threat to independent research at a time when companies like Google are consolidating their enormous power.

“Things started going wrong last summer,” Lynn told the Guardian. Open Markets began working with senator Elizabeth Warren to help her prepare a speech on America’s monopolies and what to do about them.

Google, Amazon and Facebook were platforms that could become tools “to snuff out competition,” Warren warned. “Anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”

Before the conference Slaughter’s response was to email Lynn, a correspondence which the New York Times obtained. “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just think about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Shortly after the Times story was published earlier this week, Lynn and his team were out.

New America had traditionally given its experts autonomy. “They could say what they wanted to say,” said Lynn. “We had these units of expertise and the tradition at New America was that you trusted these experts.”

Lynn said he would guess that Google’s attitude had changed for two reasons. First, Open Markets had been gained greater weight in the eyes of policymakers and enforcers. Second, regulators, especially in Europe, have clearly moved towards taking more action.

“Google is a very sophisticated team of people. They know how to spend their money and wield their influence in ways that usually get them what they want,” Lynn said. “In terms of researchers, the danger is that research and work writing about Google, about platform monopoly in general, work that should be be doing for the good of the American public will not be done.”
We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why

Marshall Steinbaum, research director and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, agrees. “On one level it is completely shocking that something like this has taken place, but it is also not surprising given the degree of market power these companies have.

“This is a huge issue in higher education policy. Given the diminished financing from state and federal sources, independent research has become more reliant on corporate sources,” he said. And with that comes strings.

Pressure for change is mounting. Luigi Zingalesm, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School, recently told the Financial Times that he and others believe antitrust laws should be reverted back to old laws that also limited political power – and in particular, continued the FT article, “the ability of rich companies and people in coastal areas to control everyone and everything else”.

Lynn has incorporated Open Markets Initiative as a separate entity and is working on launching a new thinktank. He said he hopes his new group will provide a platform for independent research into the power of companies like Google and Facebook.

“These effects are in so many corners of the political economy,” said Lynn.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... barry-lynn

This is a great topic and one I've been meaning to post on for a while. Anti-trust law is antiquated. The anti-trust legislation focuses on harm to consumers with a focus on prices. Under the current framework it is hard to attack Google, and other internet firms. Europe is trying though.

I would rather remove barriers to entry built by the government than add another level of crony capitalism.

[TheH2]

Its becoming clear that Google and FB (and to a lesser extent Amazon) are becoming monopolies. And not the old school rail or oil monopolies, but monopolies that are far more dangerous because they control so much information. Don't we have anti-trust laws in this country?

It's interesting how these monopolies have aligned themselves with the political party that claims to be the champions of anti-trust laws. These companies are run by far left zealots who (I guess) believe they can insulate themselves from attacks from Democrats so long as they keep the dollars flowing and the virtues signaling.

FTR, I'm not sure that "nationalizing" a company is ever the answer, but I would be in favor of breaking up these companies (ala MA Bell) so that they are not so powerful and then passing legislation to make it easier for competitors to get in the market. I prefer more consumer choices to government control.

=========================================

Scholar says Google criticism cost him job: 'People are waking up to its power'
Thursday 31 August 2017 06.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 10.43 EDT

Every second of every day Google processes over 40,000 search queries – that’s about 3.5bn questions a day or 1.2tn a year. But there’s one question that Google apparently doesn’t want answered: is Google a monopoly?

Barry Lynn, until this week a senior fellow at Washington thinktank the New America Foundation, has spent years studying the growing power of tech giants like Google and Facebook. He believes the answer is yes. And that opinion, he argues, has cost him his job.

This week Lynn and his team were ousted from New America after the New York Times published emails that suggested Google was unhappy with his research. The tech giant, along with executive chairman Eric Schmidt, have donated $21m to New America since 1999. Schmidt chaired the organisation for years and its main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab”.
Google-funded thinktank fired scholar over criticism of tech firm
Read more

“I’ve been there for 15 years,” Lynn told the Guardian. “And for 14 everything was great. In the last year or so it has got more difficult. And from every piece of evidence that we are seeing that has to do with pressure from Google.

“Every day I see people waking up to the power of Google, Facebook and Amazon. We have to do something as a people, we have to do something through our government and address the power of these companies. The number of congressmen and others making statements on Capitol Hill about this is growing very rapidly. The number of businesses who are saying that something must be done about the power of these companies and the way they use their power.”

Google enjoyed a long honeymoon where it was seen as a force for good. But as fears over tech oligopolies grow, industry giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have found themselves the subject of greater scrutiny from governments and skeptics in academia.

Lynn, who ran New America’s Open Markets Initiative, said his problems began last June when the European Union fined Google a record €2.42bn ($2.7bn) for breaching antitrust rules and abusing its market dominance.

Lynn posted a brief note applauding the decision and calling on US regulators “to build upon this important precedent”. The post effectively ended his 15-year career at New America, he claims.

In a statement New America’s chief executive Anne-Marie Slaughter called the claims “absolutely false” and blamed Lynn’s “repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality” for the decision.

Google said it would “not be a fair characterization at all” to blame Google for the decision. “I can confirm that our funding levels for 2017 have not changed as a result of NAF’s June post, nor did Eric Schmidt ever threaten to cut off funding because of it,” a spokeswoman said via email.

But for Lynn and others, this was more than just an office spat with a thinktank backer or office politics gone wrong . It represents a threat to independent research at a time when companies like Google are consolidating their enormous power.

“Things started going wrong last summer,” Lynn told the Guardian. Open Markets began working with senator Elizabeth Warren to help her prepare a speech on America’s monopolies and what to do about them.

Google, Amazon and Facebook were platforms that could become tools “to snuff out competition,” Warren warned. “Anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”

Before the conference Slaughter’s response was to email Lynn, a correspondence which the New York Times obtained. “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just think about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Shortly after the Times story was published earlier this week, Lynn and his team were out.

New America had traditionally given its experts autonomy. “They could say what they wanted to say,” said Lynn. “We had these units of expertise and the tradition at New America was that you trusted these experts.”

Lynn said he would guess that Google’s attitude had changed for two reasons. First, Open Markets had been gained greater weight in the eyes of policymakers and enforcers. Second, regulators, especially in Europe, have clearly moved towards taking more action.

“Google is a very sophisticated team of people. They know how to spend their money and wield their influence in ways that usually get them what they want,” Lynn said. “In terms of researchers, the danger is that research and work writing about Google, about platform monopoly in general, work that should be be doing for the good of the American public will not be done.”
We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why

Marshall Steinbaum, research director and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, agrees. “On one level it is completely shocking that something like this has taken place, but it is also not surprising given the degree of market power these companies have.

“This is a huge issue in higher education policy. Given the diminished financing from state and federal sources, independent research has become more reliant on corporate sources,” he said. And with that comes strings.

Pressure for change is mounting. Luigi Zingalesm, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School, recently told the Financial Times that he and others believe antitrust laws should be reverted back to old laws that also limited political power – and in particular, continued the FT article, “the ability of rich companies and people in coastal areas to control everyone and everything else”.

Lynn has incorporated Open Markets Initiative as a separate entity and is working on launching a new thinktank. He said he hopes his new group will provide a platform for independent research into the power of companies like Google and Facebook.

“These effects are in so many corners of the political economy,” said Lynn.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... barry-lynn

This is a great topic and one I've been meaning to post on for a while. Anti-trust law is antiquated. The anti-trust legislation focuses on harm to consumers with a focus on prices. Under the current framework it is hard to attack Google, and other internet firms. Europe is trying though.

I would rather remove barriers to entry built by the government than add another level of crony capitalism.

What would that look like for Google? Is it time to consider something for Amazon, a company that doesn't turn a lot of profit?