The New York Times Magazine:  The Case Against Google

 Introduction/ claim/title

 ‘The Case Against Google’ is a New York Times Magazine Written by Duhigg.  In the article, the author introduces the arguments raised by critics that Google has a monopoly power which acts as a threat to the U.S economy. In addition, critics argue that Google has been involved in anticompetitive practices which have led to not only rapid growth, innovation and unfair advantage but it has also restricted inter-firm competition. It is argued that Google enjoys unfair advantages by offering vertical services and this limits the ‘Quality Score’ of other companies. Critics claim that there should be antitrust concerns and policymakers and business leaders should enforce antitrust laws for consumer protection and more importantly allow other businesses to enter in the labor market and enjoy liberty in the competitive environment. In addition, the anti-trust law will protect the democratic institutions by eliminating the concentration of monopoly power. The title of this article is strong in that the author introduced the arguments from the critics on how Google is a threat to the economy and answers the question on whether the government should step in to support the anti-trust law.

Opposition/Common Ground and supporting evidence

 In the article, there is a common ground or rather  both parties agree that  Google  is one of the profitable businesses and its  vertical search engine that meet the competing preferences has  placed it in a higher position  in the competitive market. Both sides agree that Google has succeeded as it dominated the globe given that it has 87% of online searches (Duhigg, 1). The article tells that in yearly basis, Google   addresses trillions of queries and this makes a profit of 5.5 billion a day.   Given that critics and  supporters of Goggle has a common ground on Google success,  diverse views or rather a  controversy  comes in  as opponents argue that  Google, as a technology company is a powerful entity   which is capable of  using its computer codes to destroy  other industries.  They argue that this tech giant is growing so fast and for this reason there should be antitrust concerns to eliminate the monopolies. They rely on the assumption that when tech giants like Google enjoy a technological advantage, the firm extinguishes other competitors (Duhigg, 1).  The author tells that opponents raise their arguments on threat   and harm on the basis of Google’s vertical-search engines.  For example, Google has been using deceptive practices  such as  the use of ‘Big Daddy update’ and ‘Panda’  to  penalize other websites  while  deceiving the users that such practices are aimed at combating the systems   which interfere with Goggle operations (Duhigg, 1).  

There  are many instances where Google has offered less useful information  and suboptimal links  and these makes the critics argue that ‘the anticompetitive means  will have a lasting negative effects  on consumer welfare”(Duhigg, 1).  Google has  also been accused several times for  anticompetitive practices  such as ‘search bias’  where it  conducts  a vertical integration  for own products making it hard for  other  competitors  to compete. Generally, the  opposition is  not effective  or rather it is not  fairy quoted in that the article clearly states that opponents  argue from the  perspective of violation of antimonopoly laws  and how  its completive behaviors have made other companies suffer from dire consequences. Note that the controversy is not from the consumers but it is rooted from other industries due to their nature of competition in the competition market. To make the opposition effective, the opponents should not only focus on competitive rivalry but should also   show the consumers the harm and threat brought by the Google (Duhigg, 1).

 The author introduces  the  supporters’ views  by arguing that  Google  is a digital company  in the new economy  and the nature of technology  gives it an opportunity to  enter in the competitive  financial  markets  where it   uses  skills and abilities to achieve a competitive advantage and  gain stability in the.  The author supports his argument or rather he offers a supporting evidence by quoting the statement of Herbert Hovenkamp that “competition is good but if the monopoly power extinguishes competition, that is bad” (Duhigg, 1.  In addition,  the article states that  Google and other tech giants such as  Facebook, Amazon  and Apple  are  the  sources of digital entertainment  and  play a great role in business and communication in the world making an annual revenue of  trillion dollars.  Supporters are surprised how Google and these tech giants are threats to the economy and democracy yet people rely on them every day (Duhigg, 1). The article  offers a convincing evidence that  the antitrust laws  do not make sense  by stating that  Google and  other tech giants  have achieved the ‘network effects’  and rapid growth of online world   which makes no need of antitrust laws. The author offers supporting evidence by introducing the case of Microsoft where the government spent   time and money in suing Microsoft.  Even though the Microsoft’s monopoly was ended, the cause was not antitrust violation but it was due to the establishment and rapid development of Google – a search engine that competed with Microsoft businesses (Duhigg, 1).

             The rapid growth of Google is due to its skills and ability and this makes supporters argue that ‘when our products don’t work..it’s easy for users to go elsewhere…” (Duhigg, 1.) In the article,  the many supporting evidence helps the reader view both sides   and make conclusion  on  whether  Google competitive practices are extinguishing competition and  there should  be  antitrust law or not. On rejecting the allegations, the article asserts that Google competitive practices or all its business operations benefit the users.  For example, the changes such as changes in search algorithm are aimed at delivering the best search results   or rather the Google conclude that its main goal is to ensure that Google users get the best results. On the same note, Google data show that the search engine has benefited the users and the best result are not favoring the company but rather it is for the benefit of   the consumers and advertisers (Duhigg, 1). Other thing opponents should understand  is that the antitrust laws  is not about the benefits, monopolistic power , condemning the success or  fairness but rather it  acts as a legal system  which ensures a constructive marketplace. Through these evidences, the article show that the allegation toward Google threat and harm are false since they do not relate to the antitrust theory.  In real sense, Google benefits the consumers and more importantly it competes with other tech giants such as Facebook (Duhigg, 1).

Experts/Credibility

Duhigg, the author of this article is a writer of ‘The New York Times’ and he graduated from Yale University.  He has written several articles on global economy which is on the New York Times best-seller list. Being an expert in the field of economy, he has a vast knowledge and offers credible information on ‘Case against Google’ (Duhigg, 1). The authors allows the reader understand that there is difference between electronic commerce markets and the physical world. Failure to make the difference is the great weakness of the antitrust authorities because it does not value the technical aspects as well as the competition behaviors of the Google. The author is an expert as he offers various examples and supporting evidence to show that there is no a convincing evidence that Google violates the antitrust laws. Through his knowledge, the article argues that Google is a monopoly and consumers do not have any problem with the monopolistic nature (Duhigg, 1).  Through a comprehensive research, the author shows that Google has benefited its consumers and a positive network and its dominance position in the competitive market might be the reason for false allegations.

 Conclusion

 This article has interesting information and I would recommend it to readers who are interested in global economy and in specific readers who have the interest to understand the role of antitrust laws in the process of competition as well as the guiding principles. This article is helpful as it helps the readers understand that  in investigation  how Google violates the antitrust laws,   a comprehensive report should be given on how  such company damages the completion and  how it harms the consumers. I do not agree with the subject-matter presented that   it violates the antitrust legal system. Vertical competitors accuse Google for unfair advantage due to its higher vertical services Note that there are no evidence or sound criteria to show that its position in the competitive market is extinguishing other competitors in general violating the antitrust laws.  In real sense, Google in the New Economy where its competition aims at offering the best result or rather a perfect competition by diminishing the power of other competitors.  Note that company aim at making a dynamic growth and   development and these two are achieved through competition in terms of innovation and monopoly power which are responsible in the creation of strong network effects.

 Work cited