> Legally Google is different...
They are required to keep records that brick and mortar businesses do not.
> They have a de-facto monopoly as the largest search provider for the general populace.
> They are a public resource that is a requirement for many of us to use in our day to day lives.
Wait, what? Has the "defacto monopoly" been legally established? They're a "public resource?" Please cite the legal meaning of "public resource" and where it was established through legislation or judicial action that Google is one?
Forgive me for quoting you. You started with "Legally Google is different" so I assumed you wanted to talk law or legislation.
Also, I don't recall comparing Google to smaller organizations.
I may be oversensitive, but when I hear terms like "They are a public resource" I assume you mean that they should therefore be regulated by the government and paid for with tax money.
Punting on arguing for or against Google being a monopoly or utility, I will say there are a large number of people who trust Google. There are many, many ways that trust can be violated. As my coworker might say, they have a rather large attack surface.
Once regulated by the government, there is an even larger attack surface, as we in the USA have learned over the years, most notably with the recent Wikileaks dump.
> They have a de-facto monopoly as the largest search provider for the general populace. > They are a public resource that is a requirement for many of us to use in our day to day lives.
Wait, what? Has the "defacto monopoly" been legally established? They're a "public resource?" Please cite the legal meaning of "public resource" and where it was established through legislation or judicial action that Google is one?