Because we are talking about Google today: they were the subject of the article; we shouldn't have to generalize every single statement.

> we are talking about Google today

We were talking only about Google yesterday and probably will tomorrow too, but sure "we are talking about Google today".

And we were also, separately, talking about Apple all week, and we spent the past year talking about Facebook. What is your point? (Actually, looking at your comments you seem to spend all your time talking about Google, so I am guessing you are a Google shill and probably work for them or something :/.)

This is like the “#alllivesmatter” response. Sure, there are other giants and all too big companies should be improved with various interventions. But the article is about google and eu, so bringing up that this also applies to all big giants is not very interesting.

Of course google has unique problems that no other tech giant has since no one else controls search.

I’m sure you could invent any reason if you needed to, given this is a political question rather than a purely economic one.

For example, while I think of Apple as just a luxury goods company, the fact they make high-end phones means they are an obvious security target for anyone who wants to hack high-value individuals in general. I can easily believe some would want to take it into government ownership just for the increased government oversight opportunities alone, even in a liberal capitalist society.

It would make more sense to just tax them..