Post #4296238

@DaveHowe@ioc.exchange @pluralistic@mamot.fr In a sense, though, thats exactly the point: Google isn't MERELY biased; they have an unfair advantage IN EVERY NEW MARKET SPACE THEY ENTER by virtue of their size, history, and ubiquity. We've seen this before, for example, when Microsoft used its control of the operating system to crush and forestall both existing (and dominant; e.g., WordPerfect in wordprocessors; Netscape in browsers) and emergent competition in other spaces they/their subsidiaries chose to enter. In such environments, rebalancing the market requires MORE THAN simply establishing a level playing field in "advertising" (essentially what positioning in search results provides), because the king still has the SYSTEMIC advantages OF BEING THE KING. As we're starting to see in open source reporting, in today's environment where Trump's America is wielding IT'S systemic market dominance as a cudgel against allies & adversaries alike, Europe IS "creating its own," to move--as a matter of potentially existential necessity--back toward technological sovereignty. But absent regulatory intervention, those new products--no matter how good, or even how much that sovereignty IS VALUED BY EUROPEAN CUSTOMERS--would be smothered in the cradle by Google's SYSTEMIC dominance.