Well, except for when they didn't. A simple search reminds us of this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/ftc-to-an...
"Google emerged from nearly two years of intense federal scrutiny Thursday by convincing the Federal Trade Commission that even though rivals may suffer as the company continually refines its search engine, consumers often win through better, faster, more valuable answers to their queries."
This also ignores more recent requests from Democrats to look into Google:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/04...
"The new complaint comes from Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a progressive in the upper ranks of the Democratic National Committee. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission dated May 31, Ellison urged the watchdog agency to take a closer look at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, given that European regulators recently found that the search giant harmed its rivals and fined it $2.7 billion.
“The FTC should determine whether Alphabet has engaged in similar conduct in the United States and whether such conduct violates the FTC Act,” he wrote."
Those are just two cases I found in searches.
I wouldn't call this sitting on your hands.
> ...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.
We are. It's just getting drowned out by everything else that is happening.
You got one company, presiding over 90% of the search on the web: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-chart-reveals-googles-t...
Might as well call Google the Ministry of Truth. They sit in a very powerful position over information and influence. China understands this, that's why they tightly control their search results.
Anyone arguing that one company should have so much influence without probably being subject to some sort of oversight or regulation, is naive at best.
nothing.
Your claim wasn't that they didn't receive enough scrutiny. Your claim was that people haven't done anything.
You lied, or at best, are seriously misinformed, and got called out for it, and now you are moving the goal post trying to pretend like you weren't wrong and ignorant. Just admit it. You were wrong, you didn't know, and yeah, they are trying to do something, but haven't found anything yet, and even in 2018, they are calling for investigations.
What more do you want? Do you want them to NOT investigate or ask for investigations?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/word-mo...
Google makes Ma Bell look like a tiny tyke by comparison. Their position and influence over the modern internet is in a word, scary. There's no check on their power, and the Obama administration did nothing to check said power. I don't care what rubber stamps or certificate of approvals they got. Google is a monopoly. It's fine if the Democrats have abandoned that principle. Totally fine. But don't call that analysis dishonest.
Also, I'm not the only one mentioning this:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/348217-the-...
https://newrepublic.com/article/144694/democrats-face-import...
There isn’t any credible alternative to Google because they’re head and shoulders above everyone else.
There are other search engines, they just don’t measure up.
But I actually think you raise an extremely interesting question: does pushing a political agenda using your monopoly position constitute an abuse of monopoly power?
The advent of privately controlled monopolistic forums is somewhat new. I don't think it's at all obvious how the spirit of anti-trust law should be extended in the age of platforms...
We're in new territory.
As horrible as this may sound, it is a cause for anti trust break up when those in power are right leaning.
I mean, let's not split hairs here. As a matter of pragmatic reality, that's pretty much what it comes down to.