>Why? Censorship is quite a different issue from anti-trust.
Is it in this case? The censorship here is only effective because of the failures in anti-trust to adapt to the modern internet tech giants. If you are pretending that these companies aren't monopolies in search, video delivery, messaging, and social media... Well, I disagree.
So I get what you're saying, but let's not pretend Microsoft in 2000 was larger than Google or Facebook is now.
The issue is that these companies are clearly pretending to be PLATFORM when it suits them, and PUBLISHER when it suits them.
> So I get what you're saying, but let's not pretend Microsoft in 2000 was larger than Google or Facebook is now.
Larger in terms of what? Cash flow? Probably not. Monopoly power? Microsoft had something like 95% of a market that didn't even have 3 major players. The 4-firm concentration ratio was ridiculous, as was the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Microsoft owned so much of the market for PC operating systems that they loaned Apple money to avoid anti-trust issues.
Google is at about 92% of the global share of searches, but Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Yandex exist. DuckDuckGo actually entered the market not too long ago. Google now has nowhere near Microsoft's monopoly power.
Is it in this case? The censorship here is only effective because of the failures in anti-trust to adapt to the modern internet tech giants. If you are pretending that these companies aren't monopolies in search, video delivery, messaging, and social media... Well, I disagree.
So I get what you're saying, but let's not pretend Microsoft in 2000 was larger than Google or Facebook is now.
The issue is that these companies are clearly pretending to be PLATFORM when it suits them, and PUBLISHER when it suits them.