The first thing any competent Google lawyer would do is demand that Delrahim be completely recused from the case.
As their former attorney, he knows privileged information about Google.
Google to Mr. Delrahim: “So, Makan, how would you like to own your own country?”
OR, he could be Google's man on the inside who deflects or any attempts to limit their power or horse trades on their behalf. the term is called "regulatory capture."
The bottom line with all this targeted crap is whether Google and others are making in-kind contributions to Democrats. That is illegal and no different than, say, defense companies spending millions of corporate contributions to Republicans.
So, if so (which of course is true, just based insider information), then they need a CEASE AND DESIST order from a judge...and then, after that, begin the prosecutions.
I don’t care that Google/YouTube/Gmail/etc. are a huge conglomerate and all work seemly together. Like you pointed out, my issue is with how they handle searchers and appear to make certain content they don’t like harder to find, block it, etc.
Conflict of interest.
Content providers need to organize to get a decent share of the money getting made.
Think of ASCAP and BMI for the music industry.
The European Union will deal with Google.
I’ll enjoy that more than 10 Democrats screaming at each other incoherently.
Microsoft was prosecuted under anti-trust for bundling a browser and operating system.
Google today combines content (Google books, youtube, scanned libraries) with search with online advertising (where it is nearly a monopoly). On that basis alone, they could be attacked under anti-trust.
All of Big Tech can be prosecuted for anti-competitive business practices, and payment processors, too, for being in league with them.
Example 1: Gab
Google had a special data mining relationship with Twitter. Gab.AI shows up as an alternative, and once it got big, all Big Tech firms smear it as racist to justify banning it. Removed from app stores and search results. They ganged up to kill an upstart rival. Anti-competitive business practices, done under cover of “fighting hate speech”.
Example 2: Subscribestar and Freestartr
This one lets you sue Paypal, Stripe and Chase Bank under anti-trust laws.
Patreon says if we don’t like you, you can’t use our service. Fine, people move to Freestart, Hatreon and Subscribestar. Big Tech refuses ads from these sites, censors them in search results, and throttles their social media sharing. That’s interference in marketing of their service. Then the criminal cabal kicks in.
These liberal bullies roped in payment processors. The alternatives to Patreon (which Big Tech supports) were denied payment processing. Paypal, Stripe and Chase bank said we don’t like you, we won’t do business with you. Cave based on our political checklist, and we’ll let you exist. Subscribestar gave in so it wouldn’t die. Freestartr closed.
This was an organized effort by Big Tech plus financial institutions to kill companies that weren’t in lockstep with them. Youtuber Law outlined this and how many laws were violated.
even if Googoo/YooToob weren’t censoring USA,
they’re far far far too large a market hog under AntiTrust laws imho, and need to be broken up
desperately need to be broken up imho