Google: Rock Solid Arguments or Fanciful Confections?

November 17, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

I read some “real” news from a “real” newspaper. My belief is that a “real journalist”, an editor, and probably some supervisory body reviewed the write up. Therefore, by golly, the article is objective, clear, and actual factual. What’s “What Google Argued to Defend Itself in Landmark Antitrust Trial” say?


“I say that my worthy opponent’s assertions are — ahem, harrumph — totally incorrect. I do, I say, I do offer that comment with the greatest respect. My competitors are intellectual giants compared to the regulators who struggle to use Google Maps on an iPhone,” opines a legal eagle who supports Google. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. You have the “chubby attorney” concept firmly in your digital grasp.

First, the write up says zero about the secrecy in which the case is wrapped. Second, it does not offer any comment about the amount the Google paid to be the default search engine other than offering the allegedly consumer-sensitive, routine, and completely logical fees Google paid. Hey, buying traffic is important, particularly for outfits accused of operating in a way that requires a US government action. Third, the support structure for the Google arguments is not evident. I could not discern the logical threat that linked the components presented in such lucid prose.

The pillars of the logical structure are:

  1. Appropriate payments for traffic; that is, the Google became the default search engine. Do users change defaults? Well, sure they do? If true, then why be the default in the first place. What are the choices? A Russian search engine, a Chinese search engine, a shadow of Google (Bing, I think), or a metasearch engine (little or no original indexing, just Vivisimo-inspired mash up results)? But pay the “appropriate” amount Google did.
  2. Google is not the only game in town. Nice terse statement of questionable accuracy. That’s my opinion which I articulated in the three monographs I wrote about Google.
  3. Google fosters competition. Okay, it sure does. Look at the many choices one has:,, and the estimable Mojeek, among others.
  4. Google spends lots of money on helping people research to make “its product great.”
  5. Google’s innovations have helped people around the world?
  6. Google’s actions have been anticompetitive, but not too anticompetitive.

Well, I believe each of these assertions. Would a high school debater buy into the arguments? I know for a fact that my debate partner and I would not.

Stephen E Arnold, November 17, 2023


Comments are closed.

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta