• EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    The drug and cigarette analogy is dramatic, but the real heat is going to come from the claim that they only care about the supply side of the equation, not demand. In other words, their audience is locked in and has no power, and the ad suppliers (Google themselves) set the market conditions.

    That is dangerously close to monopoly talk.

    • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeha, that’s monopoly talk. I guess I was expecting something else when I read “evil”.

      I don’t really think people are locked-in by any means, there are so many alternatives. People just prefer Google because it provides the best search results and they don’t care about privacy. The alternatives are pretty good, but people just want the best. I usually have to go back to Google to query something whenever DDG isn’t providing good results.

      Before downvoting, at least explain why people are locked-in. Aren’t there alternatives to Google? They are definetely creating a horizontal monopoly by acquiring all the companies in the chain, from advertisers to operating systems… but there are alternatives to Google (the search engine). I use DDG everyday, how am I locked-in to Google? I’m not arguing against the monopoly, I’m arguing against the lock-in.

      Google- DDG, Swisscows, Qwant

      Google Chrome - Mozilla

      Google Cloud - DigitalOcean

      Android - /e/

      Google Phones - Fairphone

      Google Meets - Zoom

      Google maps - Waze

      Google photos - Dropbox

      YouTube - Vimeo

      I really don’t see the lock-in. People just want monopoly-grade service quality without the monopoly. You can’t have both.