EVEN darlings get damned, as Google is finding out. The United States, on Tuesday, filed an antitrust suit against Google, which the Justice Department described as the gatekeeper to the Internet.
Gatekeeper it is, but many will say not a good one. Size has got into its head. Size often does this to people, nations and companies.
Like it did to Microsoft, the old darling of Silicon Valley, which was similarly sued by the Justice Department in 1998. True, search is Google and Google is search. But given a choice, people would rather not Google it. Many will welcome the antitrust suit against the tech giant.
Google, like other big tech, has been bullying its competitors, a few out of existence. Media companies, which for years have seen their news culled without permission or payment, will be happy, too. Even with government intervention, like in Australia, Google continued with its errant ways by refusing to share the ad revenues they earned from the use of the news produced by the media companies.
Most happy will perhaps be Internet users whose personal data have been mined for free, much of it without consent. But the outcomes that people are hoping for will take years. If the case against Microsoft is any guide, it may take 21 years.
It was for that length of time the Justice Department pursued Microsoft before a settlement was reached. Even then, the split the competitors and regulators were hoping for didn't happen. Windows continues to dominate.
Big isn't an issue. Bad behaviour is. And when the two merge, the mix is often lethal. This is the dark side of the tech giants that regulators and people fear. Take regulators first. Why the case against Google?
To put it simply, and in layman's terms, the Justice Department is alleging Google to be "monopolist". It sure is in the search and search advertising market, at least in the eyes of the regulators. In a media statement on Tuesday, US Attorney-General William Barr had this to say: "This lawsuit strikes at the heart of Google's grip over the Internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist."
No, Barr hasn't slipped into redundancy here. Big can be good, at least in business. "Unlawful monopolist" is when big business becomes bad. This is what the antitrust law is after, and the people are against.
It is true for the US and it is true for Malaysia. The idea of antitrust laws is to keep businesses big enough to be beautiful. Not more. There is a very thin line between big and bad, as Microsoft found out in 1998, and Google is finding out now.
Now for the people. People are happy to give a thumbs up to Google for giving access to information and knowledge through the Internet. As one respondent to a Pew poll put it, 50 years ago we could only find such things in science fiction novels. But it is the "how" the access is granted which bothers many. On the way to the information, users are made to surrender their personal data, not only to Google but to advertisers.
There should be no place for coercion in search engines. Throw in corporate surveillance, behavioural manipulation and other such menacing things, you have reasons enough for people to go ballistic. Big doesn't mean you should grow fangs.