Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
The main problem I have with the predominant discussions around antitrust in contemporary internet software is that they largely ignore one quality that truly makes something a monopoply. That is, truly onerous monopolies don&#x27;t just own a vast majority of some market share. They hamper the ability to switch to another product. Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives.<p>Don&#x27;t like Chrome? Pick up Firefox, it&#x27;s quick and easy to change. And it&#x27;s the best product it&#x27;s probably ever been.<p>Don&#x27;t like Google search? There&#x27;s Bing, there&#x27;s DuckDuckGo and more.<p>Don&#x27;t like Facebook? Try any of the bajillion other social networks. Hell, quite social networks and call your grandma instead. It&#x27;s better for ya.<p>Antitrust isn&#x27;t supposed to be a bludgeon to knock whoever is on top off the top. It&#x27;s supposed to be a tool to break open markets where companies have successfully closed off competition and made it impossible for opponents to succeed. I just don&#x27;t see that in the web right now. There is no conceivable reason Facebook couldn&#x27;t be replaced and there&#x27;s ample research showing that young people are already making that transition to other platforms.<p>Meanwhile, industries like internet service, cellular and in some places water provision, leave consumers with essentially no alternative and no choice. I see this wave of anti-web 2.0 furvor as people championing a good cause, antitrust, in utterly the wrong place for our time.