There may be a wide gulf depending on the details, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. They are being punished for antitrust practices proven on a legal basis. Without bringing specifics into it, there's no way to tell wither it's moral or not, the same way you can't assume someone on the sex offender registry committed a morally repugnant crime instead of just peeing in public.[1] Don't confuse legal for moral, and if you think the facts of this case support your point, then use those facts to make that point.
1: http://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offend...
I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.
The only way you could construe my comment as saying Google is a mislabeled sex offender is if you completely ignored the actual point in lieu of keywords you chose to focus on.
My prior comment can be reduced to "if you're going to make a moral argument, use evidence of morality in that argument." That you responded with what appears to be an apoplectic fit doesn't really leave your prior argument any better off.
> I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.
Obviously. But why? I'll even help you out a bit. There are two parts of this case that are distinct as I see it, that Google suppressed search results of a new search result service they rolled out, and that their supplying their own data from the knowledge graph for shopping results when other services exist it itself monopolistic and punishable. In the former, I agree that's behavior that should not be tolerated or someone in their market position. Of the latter, I think that's a far overreach of any government. If nobody can compete because Google is just doing that much better because they've built the base of audience and information to handle it better, then Google is outcompeting the others in a good way that's better for the general public.
VW is being fined right now. Does that sound like being excused?
And I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies.
So your position is that it's worse to lie about breaking the law than it is to actually break it? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.
Besides I'm really just asking about the analogy. I think if someone posted "Show HN: My color-changing, license-plate-detecting, HOA-fine-avoiding lawn ornament" we'd all be in there yucking it up at the genius of it. But when VW does the same thing (by your analogy) we're in threads talking about much more serious topics, like individual moral culpability. My point is that your analogy is flawed, it doesn't hold up.
A good instance is jaywalking: it's a minor offense and police don't really care to enforce it. So people decide to break that law all the time.
A law is a contract. Anyone is free to break the contract if they are willing to accept the consequences.