Google’s former chairman, Eric Schmidt, once dismissed the idea of privacy. “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
The same goes for Google.
Now that talk of breaking up the illegal dot com monopoly is going mainstream, the Hillary ally isn’t happy.
The former chairman and chief executive of Google said that calls for breaking up the tech giant have “no basis in law” and would harm consumers by pushing up prices and decreasing transparency.
Antitrust is a pretty respected basis in law.
How, exactly does, Schmidt think it’s legal for one company to control the search engine market, effectively the front door to the internet, without any repercussions?
“I don’t see a basis in law for a breakup. The various proposals for breaking up would [mean] prices increase, which would be a negative consumer harm for sure,” he said.
Prices on what?
Google makes its money selling ads by leveraging its search monopoly.
“These platforms are enormously powerful, and they are free to consumers…I would be very careful about directly affecting the structure of the industry because the benefit of broad access to these platforms has brought innumerable benefits,” Schmidt continued in the Telegraph interview.
The rate of innovation has actually slowed down because Google has been suppressing rivals.
But, since Google decided to go to war against conservatives, it overreached. There’s now a growing consensus on the Right and the Left.
After Hillary’s defeat, Google has no allies at the top except, possibly, Bernie Sanders. And he isn’t going to win.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield
