Thread by @ashkan

Apparently DOJ is going to go after Google on antitrust grounds.
wsj.com/articles/justi…

Many @profgalloway @DinaSrinivasan @karaswisher have proposed this. esquire.com/news-politics/… - Is Google truly in danger? It depends.

Is Google the next Standard Oil, AT&T, Microsoft? Boils down to
1) Undercutting Competitors,
2) Killing Competition, and
3) Harming Consumers.
How does @Google fare compare to previous DOJ targets?
Let’s go down memory lane.

Standard Oil dominated oil products market initially through horizontal integration in the refining sector, then, in later years vertical integration. Google owns search #1 & #2 (via YouTube) & uses AdSense profit to undercut competitors in search & in other segments.

PragerU's mistake was framing their lawsuit around @YouTube being a "state actor" & re first amendment. Argument re @google monopoly is to point that #GOOG uses profit machine to undercut other industries (horizontal) & smaller competitors (vertical)
hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/google…

If AdSense profit machine enables Google's
i) @YouTube to undercut all other video platforms via TruView (skippable ads) scorched earth policy,
ii) Doubleclick to undercut ad serving fees, it's the monopoly-that-keeps-on-giving-to-Google.
That's the Standard Oil parallel.

AT&T argued that its reach/power served consumer interests. Despite the Kingsbury Commitment & 1956 consent decree, it was spending $360M in legal fees ($1B in today's dollars). But fines won't do it: EU fined Google $2.7B and Google still reported record profits.

As with GDPR, Europe showed drive & backbone that previous US admins lacked, but effect was GOOG paid fines & competitors couldn’t spend what it took to meet GDPR requirements.

So result was counter to objective: GOOG got stronger.

Network effects work in both ways: if Google/FB have to be broken up in Europe to continue to operate, then it's hard for them to operate as one behemoth in North America. If it must apply EU standards to North Am & Rest of World, model no longer makes sense.

Eventually, AT&T recognized its fate. But due to Bay Area arrogance, Google & @Facebook still don't realize that this fate is INEVITABLE.

With great success comes... a target on your back.

Google's stated mission is to organize information. YouTube is #2 search engine after Google. Not being on either is not existing in 21st century. But is that HARM?

How can one define/measure Harm? Big Tech thrives on liberal interpretation of DMCA's 4 Safe Habors of the DMCA, but despite allegedly profiting from piracy & copyright infringement, it enforces fairly conservative interpretation of Copyright Law to creators on their platforms.

Copyright is all about innocence until proven guilt (which they benefit from), yet their stance is "Guilt until innocence." But again, is that really harm in context of Antitrust?

So while some like @PhillyD have argued that @YouTube's demonization is about Censorship, the real censorship is when companies weaponize & abuse @YouTube's ContentID to silence critics, for example. Happens all the time. So that may be argued to be harm in broad sense.

Like AT&T, if Google has to fight multiple fronts, it will then realize its better self-regulate properly or suffer being broken apart into pieces to avoid abusing its power. Right now, Google can act as judge/jury in censorship/copyright/monetization/etc due to its power

My guess is eventually GOOG may offer to carve out and spin out YouTube as sacrificial lamb. And THAT may be why it has always treated @YouTube as a stand-alone unit. But, will that be enough for DOJ? Unsure.

To really prove Harm to Consumers in context of Antitrust will be hard. Although when things like this occur:

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441

then it’s easier to show how their dominance & policies lead to harm. But unsure if in context of ANTITRUST, that will be enough and meets test

Personally if i were to lead Google’s defense against DOJ, I would hack away at lack of Harm and how Consumers benefit from Google’s “size, scale, reach, resources.” Unless AG Barr is decider, no fair judge/jury will conclude that Consumers are harmed per se. / The End.

TL;DR: It's easy to argue that 1) Google's domination in Search/AdSense kills competitors in Maps, Docs, Android, etc. because 2) it can make it all FREE - sure. But 3) it's unclear how doing ALL of that Evily/Googily stuff causes HARM to users. That would be my focus if I were G