Google's monopoly problem isn't your problem

One of the biggest stories of the week — heck, maybe of the year — was a federal judge’s ruling that Google is a monopolist in search and advertising. Heck, maybe even in a generation given the New York Times’s assessment that it was “the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant.”

There have been multiple stories since about how the Earth may shatter under the feet of industry titans. It might. But 1) we are years away from knowing this, and years are eternities in tech and 2) I’m not sure this really means much of anything to users.

That’s because while 1) even though Google is omnipresent and pays a ton to be on Apple devices and 2) people are lazy about not using default settings 3) they aren’t when something sucks and 4) it just may be that Google search is omnipresent not because they have elbowed out the competition but that users consider them the best.

Many members pointed this out. Jerrod Nash asked, one assumes rhetorically: “Has no one heard of DuckDuckGo?” Added Beth Patton : “Or Bing?” — referring to the offering of LinkedIn parent Microsoft.

Retorted Brittany Daniels : “The problem with DuckDuckGo is that it doesn't give as many good searches that Google does for me at least” and “I didn't like the way the search on Bing worked or didn't work for me.”

So I think this is one of those stories with a big divide. If it holds up this ruling may change the course of mighty tech — the case was, after all, not about what users like but what the Justice Department and some states don’t like about about an theoretical threat to competition based on antitrust law. And so, the theory goes, if we don’t enforce this sort of thing we will never know if there is a better way.

But it about the business climate, not customers, at least not directly. Barriers to entry, not what people prefer — even if they were introduced to a product by force, as it were. Leveling the field in such a way that maybe some day other companies can enter the space and maybe do better for customers.

But in the here and now it feels more like customer preference or laziness — like when Google settled another federal case after it acknowledged that Chrome’s incognito mode wasn’t all that incognito. Was there a hew and cry from the masses? I’m sure your search engine of choice will provide you the answer.

The Wrap covered two stories about students (here and here). One was very uplifting, the other somewhat discouraging.

First the good news: The American Opportunity Index published a list of the top 50 entry level companies for high school grads. The metrics are solid:

The American Opportunity Index’s 2024 Best Places for High School Graduates to Start a Career list is based on scores on three key Index metrics: how well firms hire entry-level workers (First Jobs), promote them internally (Advancement Within) and prepare them for better opportunities when they leave (Advancement Beyond). Excelling in these areas can have a profound impact in the early stages of a person’s career.

The college value prop story still has legs (more about this below …). And feeding into that, after several generations of pressure, is a return to the notion that a college education isn’t, and should not be, a must-have. The stigma of having no higher education is eroding, however slowly. My first taste of this was a Wall Street Journal article in April headlined How Gen Z is becoming the toolbelt generation. It helps that college has become so expensive.

And now for something completely different.

In a poll conducted earlier this year SallieMae and Ipsos nearly half of students revealed a troubling attitude towards debt. The Wrap reported it as perhaps the definition of moral hazard. Per CNBC:

Nearly half — 48% — of student loan borrowers expect debt forgiveness in the future. Many of those borrowers anticipate that the government will excuse them from their education loans, according to Sallie Mae’s annual?How America Pays for College report.

I mean, WTAF.

But wait — there’s more! The same study found that a slightly smaller number — 43% — even considered more expensive colleges based on the availability of student loans, which they expect will be forgiven.

I mean what do they teach in school?

Members had words. Tim Bowman reminded us that someone else always pays for someone's free lunch:

To those of you who expect your loan to be forgiven, remember that "forgiveness" makes the taxpaying public your scapegoat. Also remember that, a government large enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take from you everything you have.

al tommaso is having none of it: “… these kids are only going to be leeches on society if they get away with it...what's next ? ...pay off their mortgages ? ...pay off their car loans ? ...no honor, no integrity !

What’s a week without at least one bizarre Elon Musk story. This week’s was a doozy. Here’s the fun several media outlets had with it:

Elon Musk's X has lost tons of advertisers. The platform's solution is to sue them. (Business Insider)

Elon Musk Is Mad Advertisers Listened to His Request to “Go F— Yourself” (Slate)

Twitter tells advertisers to go fsck themselves, now sues them for fscking the fsck off (The Register)

I mean, it doesn’t get much better than that.

The fuller context: Last November, shortly after a bunch of advertisers had pulled off X, Elon Musk went off on advertisersat the DealBook conference. Some were actually in the audience. So was CEO Linda Yaccarino ...). It was great TV, a magnificent moment, and maybe not the best strategy.

Musk has now confirmed that the lack of advertisers has cost plenty — X is a private company and doesn't have to disclose any financials. And whether he just wants to lash out or actually thinks he can recoup some coin, he's suing a trade group.

Per Reuters:

The lawsuit said, opens new tab advertisers, acting through a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called Global Alliance for Responsible Media, collectively withheld “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, previously known as Twitter.

It said they acted against their own economic self-interests in a conspiracy against the platform that violated U.S. antitrust law.

Charitably, this is a stretch. Again, per Reuters:

Christine Bartholomew, an antitrust expert and professor at University at Buffalo's law school told Reuters that lawsuits alleging unlawful boycotts can face a high bar.

X must show that there was an actual agreement to boycott joined by each advertiser, Bartholomew said. "Proving this requirement is no small hurdle" in cases where an agreement might be implicit, she said.

And, what’s the remedy? Even if they colluded it is going to be ever tougher to prove any were coerced, as the suit alleges, that “they acted against their own economic self-interests in a conspiracy against the platform that violated U.S. antitrust law.”

And, pray tell, what is the remedy? Finding a weak-kneed marketer who avoided X because the big bad trade group to which it belongs forbade it to return to the platform? Getting paid some damages — a one-time thing anyway — after further alienating the people who provide your main source of revenue?

I guess if you have a lot to lose you have nothing to lose filing a lawsuit like this.

One immediate effect was that the non-profit arm of said group closed up shop. So ... winning?