The worst possible antitrust outcome

Extreme Wealth, Power, and Democracy

• Many argue that very large fortunes are inherently incompatible with democracy: billions (and especially “hectobillionaires”) translate into outsized political and media power.
• Suggested fixes include wealth caps (e.g., capping personal net worth and moving surplus into public funds), steep progressive taxation, and tying obligations to the “social fabric” that enabled that wealth.
• Others push back that seizing or capping assets is complex, since most ultra-wealth is in company equity and control over huge firms is itself a form of power.
• Some note Europe still has billionaires but somewhat lower inequality; no one claims democracy there is “perfect.”

Money, Markets, and Regulation

• A long subthread debates whether money is intrinsically “power over others” versus merely a neutral medium of exchange.
• One side emphasizes coercion via economic necessity: people “choose” to work or accept bad terms because the alternative is destitution; true freedom requires a welfare net and strong labor/antitrust rules.
• The other side distinguishes “free markets” (voluntary exchange) from “capitalism” as pursuit of capital by any means, arguing most monopolies historically arise from government-granted privileges and regulation capture.
• A counter-position claims monopoly is the natural endpoint of unregulated markets, so external regulation is unavoidable.

Taxation, Inequality, and Capital Flight

• Several participants favor confiscatory or very high top tax rates as a way to reduce the political voice of money and fund public goods.
• Others warn of rich individuals and firms relocating (or shifting activity between US states), arguing that historically effective tax rates for the very rich were not as high as headline rates suggest.
• There’s a meta-debate on whether taxes primarily raise revenue or steer behavior (Pigouvian “steering taxes” vs. broad revenue collection).

Antitrust, Rule of Law, and the Google Case

• Many think incremental remedies for dominant firms are ineffective; they advocate structural breakups into coherent units (search, ads, browser, Android, YouTube, etc.) and punishment that claws back all monopoly-era gains, including personal penalties for executives.
• Others caution against treating “the process as the punishment,” calling that authoritarian: government should not weaponize trials purely to harm disfavored companies; remedies must follow proven violations.
• Significant concern centers on the Google antitrust trial’s secrecy: bans on devices in court, sealed exhibits, and limited public record are seen as undermining trust and shielding “dirty laundry” that should inform public and policy responses.

Defaults, Apple Payments, and Remedies

• The $20B+/year Google pays Apple to be the default search engine is seen by some as obvious exclusionary conduct (paying to prevent Apple from ever becoming a rival); others frame it as a normal distribution deal akin to default tires on a car.
• There’s disagreement over how much that payment actually “bought” Apple’s forbearance, versus Apple’s independent disinterest in building search.
• The ordered remedy—forcing Google to syndicate its index/results to rivals but not its full ranking data—is viewed by many as technically and competitively weak, unlikely to produce a true search competitor.

Data, Privacy, Ads, and Free Services

• Some downplay Doctorow’s rhetoric about Google “stealing” facts, insisting users still “have” their own data and that Google doesn’t literally sell raw personal data.
• Others, including people claiming ad-tech experience, say Google’s “anonymous” sharing is trivially deanonymized and that detailed behavioral profiles give Google (and its customers) deeper knowledge of individuals than individuals have of themselves.
• A broader critique targets the ad-funded “free” model: by normalizing free email/search/video/etc., Google entrenched surveillance advertising and made it very hard for paid alternatives (e.g., subscription search) to gain mass traction.

Media Power and Public Discourse

• Several comments link wealth concentration to concentrated media power: major outlets and platforms are owned or influenced by the rich, shaping narratives to preserve the status quo.
• This is framed as another channel through which extreme wealth undermines democratic accountability and antitrust enforcement.