Thread by @modestproposal1

the Omidyar Network released an interesting paper: Roadmap for a Monopolization Case Against Google Regarding the Search Market

I want to highlight the section on foreclosure of specialized search providers because I think it raises notable issues.

omidyar.com/sites/default/…

They first note that Google is today and ad engine, not a search engine, with the SERP well out of sight.

"By steering users to its own site, Google can weaken rivals because lack of scale and data lowers the quality of their products. By contrast, the additional customers and scale strengthen the Google product and raises its quality."

"The change in quality that follows foreclosure also protects Google from antitrust investigations. Google can assert to the authority that the foreclosed rival was not foreclosed, but rather had poor quality..."

You often hear "specialized search providers are just bitter cause Google's product is better", but here the argument is that is the result of foreclosure rather than Google's own expertise.

Small and focused usually wins in a fair fight elsewhere in tech.

"If Google had instead competed with these businesses on the merits, consumers would have benefited from more innovation and quality generated by that competition. Instead, Google reduced the scale of its rivals through denying them customers and delivering that scale to itself"

this is an interesting point:

"Because rivals in specialized search could buy themselves back to the top of the page with high-priced ads, it cannot be the case that the Google’s motivation was designed to protect consumers from low quality."

It seems unlikely current antitrust law will find consumer harm from Google Search behavior, but I thought this paper made an interesting case for how consumers are being harmed by Google actions to prevent vertical search from usurping it, which is/was a major risk to their biz.