In May of 1911, The Supreme Court ordered that Standard Oil must separate since they were severely harming competition by dominating the industry. This made it harder for the competition to flourish in the economy. If this was the reason that Standard Oil was broken up in 1911, why didn't the FTC decide to do this to Google?
As discussed in class, Google displays loads of content in many different areas. However, it wasn't always like this. Google took content based on popularly visited websites and displayed them directly after the search deterring people from visiting other links. The Case Against Google article brings up the fact that Google displays forecasts after a weather search and reviews when searching for a restaurant. Doing this means that users just make a search on Google, and their results are displayed immediately.
Of course, this harms the competition since users no longer need to visit other sites if Google displays the results on its own search engine. If the government decided to break down Standard Oil for harming the competition, why didn't they do this for Google?
The way I interpret it, Google is giving access to the data of separate websites at a more convenient level. There are separate websites and separate industries that are providing the information displayed on Google. However, the question remains: is this harmful to the competition? Or helpful for making exposing users to other links and industries?
For example, when searching up a fact or a question, Google typically provides a box of relevant information and the link at which the information was provided. If the paragraph only answered part of the question or more information was needed the link is provided. This is extremely convenient and user-friendly but it could be argued that it is stopping the actual links from being visited. So which is more important? Convenience at the leisure of the user or convenience at the expense of the competition?
Source:
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/may-15-1911-supreme-court-orders-standard-oil-to-be-broken-up/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html
I have mixed opinions on what is more important, but on the consumer side, I think that convenience at the leisure of the user is more important. Sometimes, I just need a quick answer to my search, and Google's interface makes it super easy to find an answer that I'm looking for. However, if I want to do more research and digging around, then I am free to do that with the other websites and links provided. I think it's beneficial to have a box of relevant information at the top of the page provided by Google.
ReplyDeleteAnother perspective is that this convenience provided to consumers is a double-edged sword. While Google is trying to satisfy their consumers, preventing competition can also hurt them in the long run. Without competition being even possible over Google, it prevents innovation in the product. There is no reason for a company to try hard to make a better website if the consumers won't even have to visit it.
ReplyDelete