Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The case for — and against — breaking up Google

In the season finale of Land of the Giants: The Google Empire, we explore the antitrust scrutiny focused on the search giant.

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998.
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998.
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998.
Kim Kulish/Corbis via Getty Images
Shirin Ghaffary
Shirin Ghaffary was a senior Vox correspondent covering the social media industry. Previously, Ghaffary worked at BuzzFeed News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and TechCrunch.

When Google started back in the late ’90s, the idea that the two zany Stanford graduate students rollerblading around campus with no real business plan could one day be accused of running a monopoly would’ve seemed ludicrous. Back then, Microsoft was a Goliath of the tech industry, facing allegations of muscling its competition out of the market, while Google was a David, democratizing access to information online.

It’s incredible how much the landscape has changed in a little over two decades.

Today, Google is facing unprecedented scrutiny of its size, power, and influence. In the United States, politicians on both sides of the aisle, everyone from ardent conservatives to progressive Democrats, have found rare common ground in their desire to check Big Tech’s power. And while many of the other tech giants (namely Amazon, Facebook, and Apple) are facing similar pressure, Google is the first in the political hot seat. That’s because it’s the subject of not just one but three antitrust lawsuits, including a historic case by the Department of Justice alleging that the company has engaged in monopolistic behavior to elbow out its competition.

Proponents of regulating Google say it has amassed too much influence over our economy and daily lives. They argue that we don’t have much of a choice but to use the search giant’s products, and that comes with privacy and business trade-offs. But others say that, because Google’s products are largely free, it’s helping, not harming, consumers. They worry that putting new rules in place could stymie Google’s greatest innovations.

“I think what we really want is more technology companies, a marketplace that’s working properly, that has real competition,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who told Recode he’s drafting a slew of new legislation to regulate Google and other tech giants later this year.

We examined the case for — and against — regulating Google in the season finale of our podcast, Land of the Giants: The Google Empire, which chronicles the challenges facing one of the most important technology companies of our time.

In addition to Rep. Cicilline, we spoke with a range of experts, including DuckDuckGo founder Gabriel Weinberg and Sally Hubbard of the Open Markets Institute, who made the case that Google is, in their view, a monopoly power that needs government intervention. But others, like Google’s director of economic policy, Adam Cohen, argue that the company doesn’t need to be regulated because it’s a net positive for society .

“It’s an amazing leveler — an equalizer because of the advertising business model,” said Cohen. “Poor people have access to exactly the same information as a rich person might. And I think that’s really worth defending.”

Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh