“For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States―general search services and general text advertising-through its exclusive distribution agreements.” – USA v. Google
Section 2 of the 1890 Sherman Act states,
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”
What a waste of money. It's impossible to be too critical of the USA v. Google antitrust ruling. It represents our complete inability to come to any political terms with the revolutionary implications of compute-information technology. Predictably, Bloomberg's “US technology columnist” writes, “For all the talk of the need to modernize antitrust laws to apply to the internet age, it’s reassuring that the more-than-a-century-old Sherman Act stood up to the task.” The Sherman Act remains “a yardstick that has turned out as applicable to search traffic as it did to Standard Oil.” Nothing is further from the truth. Reliance on the archaic and never was good enough Sherman Act insures technology wielding corporate oligarchs will have complete and increasingly detrimental control of our future.
In public perception, no corporation better represents the last quarter century development of “high-tech” than Google. Yet in many ways, Google is nothing more than an advertising company. “Search engines make money by selling digital advertisements... The vast majority of Alphabet's revenues (nearly 80%) come from digital advertisements, and historically the largest component has been ads displayed on Google's search engine results page.” (USA v. Google)
This fact is essential to understanding the ruling. The American legal system loves and relies on precedent, well, that is, until it doesn't. In “Conclusions of Law: Stating the Legal Framework,” the Court reveals the limited, impotent box the Sherman Act and antitrust in general have been shoved by precedent over the course of a century. The Court bases its decision on three previous decisions:
"Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a firm to ‘monopolize.' United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 2). The offense of monopolization requires proof of two elements: '(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.' United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570–71 (1966).”
The Court adds,
“The Supreme Court has defined 'monopoly power' to mean 'the power to control prices or exclude competition.' United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. , 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956).”
The Court cites the Microsoft case to show Sherman was already applied to a tech/software company. The second and third precedents cited reveal how the decision will have little to do with technology and all to do with the always loose definitions of “markets,” “competition,” and “monopoly power.” All three terms were largely defined and redefined by various schools of economic thought in the century after the Sherman Act was passed. Imperatively, they are schools of thought completely stripped of the democratic political concerns of the newly industrializing agrarian republic, concerns responsible for the Sherman Act coming about.
The ruling spends more time describing the advertising processes/manipulations of Google than it does explaining the architecture of the search technology. The ruling addresses Google's search dominance largely in relation to their advertising monopoly. It is a damning indictment of our collective imagination. This new information technology is overwhelmingly valued by its ability to promote greater advertising induced consumption.
Three decades into the internet era, the greatest increase in information has been an absolute advertising inundation. Watching a half-hour of Google's Youtube, you can be deluged with more ads than a half-century ago when three corporations controlled broadcast television screens, though unlike television, Google created none of the content. This unfettered pollution of our communications environment helped lower the value of all information, compromising our ability to effectively communicate.
Unintentionally, the case undermines the go-to marketing gimmick of compute technology since the development of the personal computer, a motto rising out of the eminently confused politics of America's cultural revolution. The industry has ceaselessly promoted that the personal computer, the internet, and mobile phones were all technologies of individual empowerment. US v. Google clearly documents this is anything but the case. The number one result of all this new technology has been a greater ability of leviathan forces to manipulate the individual. This manipulation wasn't on trial, only who controls it. The court decided Google controls too much.
The most enlightening aspect of the ruling reveals, with the testimony of “experts”, the practices of the advertising industry and Google's role with its monopoly control of a new technology.
One government expert is Joshua Lowcock, Global Chief Media Officer, Universal McCann, Interpublic Group (IPG), one of the world's largest advertising agencies, employing 57,000 people, with $11 billion in revenue in 2023. Mr. Lowcock testifies, "The purpose of advertising is to capture consumers' attention and drive them through to a point of conversion, and conversion is to purchase a product or service.” — This is not individual empowerment.
The Court continues, “Marketing professionals in industry and academia have used a 'funnel,' as a visual depiction of the consumer journey from awareness to purchase... summarizing the funnel as 'driving awareness, capturing intent, driving consideration, and driving a decision to purchase.'”
“Marketers view different ad channels in terms of their relative strength at achieving objectives along the funnel.”
Explaining “the funnel,” the Court calls on the expert testimony of Ryan Booth Senior Manager of Paid Search for Home Depot. Mr Block testifies, “The upper funnel focuses on generating consumer inspiration and awareness of the product. (e.g., 'getting people thinking about performing a [home-improvement] project').”
Boy, isn’t that what the world needs now from compute technology, pushing Americans to think about “home-improvement” projects.
Block continues,
“In the middle (of the funnel) is the consideration phase, where the consumer evaluates a class of products or a particular product. ('The middle part of the funnel is to try and drive some sort of behavior so to learn more about the product or service.') (Lowcock) The lower funnel seeks to persuade a user to carry out a transaction (e.g., a sale or other metric of conversion).”
Advertising industry expert testimony makes clear, the hundreds of billions dollars a year spent on advertising have nothing to do with individual empowerment and everything to do with manipulation. So while Tech still promotes they're empowering you, listen carefully, you'll hear it endlessly, the advertising industry operates under no such delusions.
As far as Google's principal concern in this process, the Court writes, “Google does not serve ads in response to all queries. It does so only in response to queries that convey a 'commercial intent,' which Google assesses by determining whether an advertiser is willing to pay for an ad in response to the query.” That is, Google will sell ads based on any search as long as someone wants to pay for it.
The section on the actual search technology is not great in detail but worth reading. However, for understanding the technology's architecture (how it is structured and operates) not so much. There is no politics of technology in this ruling. Most relevant and not in any way addressed, Google's power is structured on the existing underlying network architecture of the internet, an architecture entirely reliant on centralized servers. This structure not simply facilitates, but promotes monopoly control of everything built across it. It is not coincidence centralized mega-corporations created a centralized compute-information network.
The ruling documents how Google gained and exploited its search dominance with many practices similar to how Microsoft gained controlled over the desktop three decades earlier and then attempted to gain control over the internet by commanding key software interfaces and exclusive profitable agreements with select corporations. “The court structures its conclusions of law consistent with Microsoft's analytical framework.” (USA v. Google)
Also documented is Google's use of its search technology to better target advertising based on each users’ activity. Again not individual empowerment, but manipulation assisting Google in constructing your own information cage. Every search is used to better target the next. Each query then used to target advertising. “As queries on Google have grown, so too has the amount it earns in advertising dollars. In 2014, Google booked nearly $47 billion in advertising revenue. By 2021, that number had increased more than three-fold to over $146 billion.” (USA v. Google)
In the three-quarters century development of compute technology, search became a fundamental tool for ordering and utilizing what for practical purposes would otherwise be an infinite quantity of largely useless data. Search has also become invaluable for accessing information created preceding the compute era. To judge and value this universe of human created information first, foremost, and in many cases exclusively for its advertising value is not simply ludicrous, it's a crime against humanity. Nonetheless, Google's almost $2 trillion market value is based largely on its value as an advertising medium, advertising that as the Court's experts testified isn't about individual empowerment but manipulation by mega-corporate powers. Three decades ago, Ted Nelson, who first conceived the concept of hypertext in the 1960s and became disgusted by how compute technology was being developed, stated, “In 1974, computers were oppressive devices in far-off air conditioned places. Now you can be oppressed by computers in your own living room.” It can be added today, by computers in your workplace, car, and pocket. Just wait till Elon get’s his chip in your head.
From a technology perspective, the ruling contains a couple comments on the newest generation of compute technology being marketed as artificial intelligence (AI). At this point, AI is primarily best understood as a more powerful and sophisticated search. The Court offers an almost comical definition, "Artificial intelligence is the science and engineering of getting machines, typically computer programs, to exhibit intelligent behavior.” Now, there's a primo circular definition provided by a Court making a decision on one of the most powerful, centralized information tyrannies1 in recorded human history. Good luck with that definition, especially if you think it actually provides any useful meaning.
More amusingly, the Court continues, “The integration of generative AI is perhaps the clearest example of competition advancing search quality.” Once more the Court uses economic thinking, which over a century stripped antitrust bare politically, using the always nebulous 20th century economists created terms of competition and markets. All are insufficient to understanding the architecture of search and AI, considering the technology's value is based on ordering the collective knowledge of humanity. Far and away, the technology would be most beneficially utilized by understanding cooperation. The most cooperative politics humanity has ever experienced is democracy. Any notion of antitrust being a tool of democracy were abandoned long ago.
The comedy continues, “Recently, Google and Bing (Microsoft) have incorporated generative AI technology into their SERPs (Search Engine Results Page) by providing 'AI-powered answer[s],' which do not rely on user data to produce... It argues that newer ranking models rely on less data, with some driven entirely by AI... .” So there you go, intelligence without data, you might say that's something truly novel, but it can easily be argued it's what passes for commentary across much of the internet today. At least the Court somewhat sees through this, by no means clearly, writing, “Although these newer systems are less dependent on user data, they were designed with user data and continue to be trained on it, albeit using less volume.”
The absolute best comment about AI is from Google's Senior Vice President of Knowledge and Information Products, Prabhakar Raghavan. He states, "Now with artificial intelligence, I think we are again in the early stages of completely rethinking what's possible for our users." We will be able to do a “better job of defining the user's intent and giving just the perfect answer.” Google will better define the user's intent! How will advertisers' dollars aid in defining the user’s intent? Again, Raghavan's comments follow, as previously noted, the industry tradition claiming everything they do is done first and foremost in the user's interest, empowering the individual. Pay no attention to the trillions of dollars reaped for such a benevolent undertaking.
The only conclusion you can real draw from USA v. Google is the complete inability of our laws, politics, government and economic structures, especially the industrial corporation to shape these new technologies for promoting the general welfare, much less to in any way revive democracy. Yet, it is the distributed structure of democracy by which both the benefits of these new technologies can best be derived and the detrimental impacts best mitigated. This requires rejecting the belief the economic values, processes, and institutions of industrialization can be simplistically or sophisticatedly ascribed to these new technologies. Especially when it is obvious these same values, processes, and institutions remain completely incapable of addressing the environmental legacy created by two centuries of industrial technologies.
In checking, balancing, or restraining the growing power of leviathan conglomerates, the Sherman Act was deficient at birth. The Act came out of a democratic politics now basically lost to history marking a volatile American political environment catalyzed by the growing unaccountable power of increasingly powerful corporations. Neither the terms market or competition appear in the Sherman Act. Monopoly had far greater meaning concerning the concentration of political power than anything learned in today's Econ 101. Over the course of the following century, the Court devolved Sherman's political intent expressed clearly in the 1892 “Omaha Platform” of the People's Party: “We believe that the time has come when the railroad corporations will either own the people or the people must own the railroads.”
Economics is not, nor has it ever been a science. It is simply descriptive, “truisms,” as author William Greider would say, of established methodology and their resulting social relations. Never has economics exemplified natural laws, but was culturally instrumental justifying the positions of the new power structures of industrial society, most ironically by completely ignoring the resulting power relations and concentrations of power. 20th century economics quickly became a rationalization for industrial methods and corporate power.
Lawrence Goodwyn's Democratic Promise (1976) is an excellent history of the Sherman Act era, the late 19th century ascension of corporate power and the establishment of the 20th and now 21st century corporate state. Goodwyn's book documents small farms' and the agriculture workforce’s, at that point 60% of the republic's population, decisive loss to the growing power of the new railroads and new national banks first established to fund Mr. Lincoln's war. Today, less than 2% of the American population is directly engaged in farming.
Goodwyn documents how industrial technologies and their corporate offspring effected the greatest political change in the republic's history, fundamentally reshaping the republic, the establishment of a much more centralized, oligarchic, corporate state. A corporate state completely dominant today. Goodwyn addresses specifically the role played by economic thought in rationalizing the concentration of corporate power, much more so than offering any proof of its inevitability. He writes,
“While the concept of 'economies of scale' in agriculture remains debatable, in itself, the more germane historical reality is that centralization of American farm land had occurred even before corporate farming could prove or disprove its relative 'efficiency.' It was simply a matter of capital and the power of those having capital to prevent remedial democratic legislation. The failure to provide credit for seventy years would seem to be the operative ingredient in these dynamics which has been rather overlooked. Culturally, it has not been considered good manners in the American academy to draw critical attention to bankers.”
The late 19th century Populist Movement was largely comprised of small farmers, along with small merchants, and a not insignificant contingent of new industrial workers. They intimately understood the new industrial technologies were undermining established society, most especially the agrarian republic founded only at the end of the previous century. Goodwyn writes, “Populists dissented against the progressive society that was emerging in the 1890’s because they thought that the mature corporate state would, unless restructured, erode the democratic promise of America. Not illogically, therefore, they sought to redesign certain central components in the edifice of American capitalism.”
This was the political mindset from which sprung the Sherman Act, though unlike Athena springing from Zeus' forehead, the Act proved much less fierce. With the establishment of the American corporate state, antitrust action proved the exception to the rule of largely unimpeded concentration of corporate power. Ironically, from a purely economic standpoint, antitrust actions taken, including the breakups of Standard Oil and AT&T, making public the innovations of Bell Labs, and most recently prohibiting Microsoft's control of the internet, have all proved wildly economically beneficial. Yet the entrenchment of the greater corporate state was never challenged.
Today, this archaic corporate state proves incapable of innovatively implementing these new compute-information technologies, simultaneously incapable of amending the environmental destruction wrought over their past century of dominance. However, pointing fingers at corporations is simply not enough, while it is incredulous to believe the corporate state can somehow be reformed from the centralized, archaic, agrarian structures of government the corporations control in DC.
Over the last century, our expanding knowledge of science, particularly quantum physics and biology birthed the creation of technologies not simply shaping nature but whose very structure brings nature’s indeterminacy and chaos into human social organization. It may be thought as the difference between using our hands to shape mud into bricks and using technology to split the atoms of the mud. In The Human Condition, seminal democratic thinker Hannah Arendt describes the impact of the reintroduction of nature into human society via technology,
“The channeling of natural forces into the human world has shattered the very purposefulness of the world, the fact that objects are the ends for which tools and implements are designed.”
She adds,
“The question therefore is not so much whether we are the masters or the slaves of our machines, but whether machines still serve the world and its things, or if, on the contrary, they and the automatic motion of their processes have begun to rule and even destroy the world and things.”
This is an essential insight to understanding the rapid development of technology in the last two-centuries and even more so the compute and biological technologies of the last half-century. Increasingly, the technology itself, not us, determines technological development. The greater social and political environments have lost any ability to impact this development. Arendt further explains this new phenomena,
“The natural processes on which it feeds increasingly relate it to the biological process itself, so that the apparatuses we once handled freely begin to look as though they were "shells belonging to the human body as the shell belongs to the body of a turtle." Seen from the vantage point of this development, technology in fact no longer appears "as the product of a conscious human effort to enlarge material power, but rather like a biological development of mankind in which the innate structures of the human organism are transplanted in an ever increasing measure into the environment of man."
Most appropriately, the final phrase in quotes comes from Werner Heisenberg, one of the creators of quantum mechanics, the scientific understanding that quickly led to the technologies of the atomic bomb and transistor based compute. Heisenberg's insight altered three centuries of established Newtonian physics, the intellectual foundation of industrial technology and industrial society. The science and technology of quantum physics directly resurrects the ancient concern of nature's indeterminacy and probability. In the ancient world, indeterminism was the realm of myth and magic. It is not a coincidence the rise of compute technology has been accompanied with the development of a robust predictive, forecasting, even prophetic culture, claiming science as its source.
Humanity's last century of scientific understanding revealed, in direct contradiction to our hierarchical traditions, nature's order as complex and horizontally distributed, not a centralized pyramid with order flowing down from an executive peak. Hierarchical traditions and institutions grow ever more incapable of influencing the technologies of this new scientific understanding.
The lead creator of the first atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer understood our predicament. In a 1961 speech at the University of Colorado he states, “We face our new problems, created by the practical consequences of technology and the vast intellectual consequences of science itself,... in a context of a society for which none of our institutions were ever really designed.”
Our politics are broken. USA v. Google paints clearly the present court system is completely incapable of dealing with this technology. The court system is representative of the failure of all our institutions to grapple with issues, as Oppenheimer noted, none were designed. If humanity is to beneficially utilize this technology, we must create much more distributed systems of politics and governance, literally a more natural order. We need to mimic nature by radically distributing information, not lock it away in digital vaults of centralized corporations or government. Information must be dynamic, living in participatory associations that are made up not of servile, passive consumers, but active, engaged designers — citizens.
With distributed, complexly networked organization, — local, state, and global — we can create the ability to better understand technology's and thus our own relation with nature. We can create systems with an ability to continuously and extensively react to the feedback the world and the universe offer our technological diddling. As democracy is our invaluable, though quite limited historical experience with distributed order, democracy becomes not simply a matter of political taste, but a necessity.
Tyranny is from the Ancient Greek. In Politics, Aristotle defines, “Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.”
This is a great line: "The industry has ceaselessly promoted that the personal computer, the internet, and mobile phones were all technologies of individual empowerment. US v. Google clearly documents this is anything but the case. The number one result of all this new technology has been a greater ability of leviathan forces to manipulate the individual. This manipulation wasn't on trial, only who controls it. The court decided Google controls too much."