Break up Google?
Should Google be broken up? My Libertarian PoV is to use that as the tool of last resort, and I don't think we've tried the others yet. But I do think there's plenty of room to make sure they're following certain rules. If they're a communication platform (absolved from liability of what people post), then they can only curate for crimes, not their own bias. If they want to curate, then they're an editorial (publishing) platform, and they should be subject to liability for everything they get wrong and it hurts people. Pick one. But my view is in the minority, here's a lot more on folks that think they should be broken up and regulated (even far left outfits that like their bias):
- New York Times, of course doesn't care about their actions against conservatives, their case against Google is based on the businesses they've rolled over and competition they've crushed, that their scale makes them ripe. (They also littered it with the usual leftist fallacies and falsehoods about Standard Oil, and the imaginary heroism of big government protecting us from runaway corporatism). 
- The Guardian argues as most socialist outfits do, that the public should control the means of production and information. Since they acquired other companies, and added value to the public, they are bad, and must be owned by the masses. 
- USAToday takes a surprising direction that since they're big, powerful, and Sundar (their CEO) was completely wrong in firing James Damore (which I agree with), that Sundar must be fired, and we can never trust the company to do self-driving cars or other things, until they're broken up. (Seem a little extreme to me). 
- Boston Globe (Editorial Board), since they're 90 percent of all Internet searches, they are a monopoly. Of course that's not a very broad thinking view, since more searches are being done mobile, targeted product searching, social media, or voice, which aren't counted in those specs, and Google is losing power, not gaining it (in those other areas). As well as being a monopoly isn't a problem, abusing the power or being anti-competitive is. So the article seems illogical to me, because it's saying breakup for the sake of breaking them up (begging the question fallacy), not because of what they do that's wrong, or what breaking them up would do to make things better.