I'm not privy to the plan, but what was right at one stage (funding a company to gain a monopoly position on search) need not be right at a later stage. Perhaps now a different strategy is unfolding. Perhaps it is obvious that government and corporations work in tandem, and the optics require that it appears that government acts against monopolists to regain confidence.

Alternatively, maybe there is no master plan by some cabal pulling all the player’s strings. Maybe you have multiple powerful entities acting in their own interest, which can sometimes align and sometimes be at odds. Apple is a good example, as they are cozy with governments on many things, but push back hard against building backdoors into their systems because they know that eventually “bad guys” will figure out the backdoor and that hurts their bottom line.

How can one know what is real and what is choreographed optics?

Maybe there is no master plan, sure. But this is not something you or I will ever know.

We are told that there are secret courts, that produce secret orders.

Trust in government is misplaced, when it is in the design that you will not be told all the information. Alternatively stated, these are lies of omission - you don't know what you don't know. This is part of the design of the system - it's not a quirk or accident.

If the governance system were a person - ie someone you know is a liar but you have no means of ascertaining the truth of what they say - I suspect you would not deal with them. However, when it comes to the governance system, everyone thinks this is normal and acceptable. Everyone is an apologist. Because the other option is unbearable to consider, it seems - that the governance system is not there to help. Even though 'government' the name tells you everything : 'govern minds'.

Its a successful system of control and people love it.

You have to admit (in the U.S.) companies have significant power over the government.

As far as I can see, nobody said anything that could conceivably be interpreted to imply otherwise, so sure?

I am really unsure what your argument even is, gymbeaux - and how it relates to verisimi's previous point. You're not trying to argue that it was Google's masterplan all along to get the anti-trust ruling, right?

This has to be true in any country with anything approaching a free market? Even if it's not blatant and closer to Inversion of Control you see it reflected in national economic policy all the time.