> People do not usually type a specific alternative into the address bar.

I dont get thsi argument at all. When I walk into Safeway, Coke products are kept in the front of the store and Pepsi products are at the back of the store. Coke probably paid Safeway a bunch of money for this to happen, and you could argue people will pick up Coke more than Pepsi based on this. How can you argue Coke is "evil" / "bad" / "monopolistic" based on this? It is Safeway's choice who to get the money from. If anything, I'd argue Safeway is being a little naughty here.

> TikTok may be the place for short dopamine-driven content, but lectures and reviews are still mostly on YouTube. And YouTube was strengthened by Google’s broader market power and distribution position.

I disagree. YouTube's position was strengthed by creators who uploaded there by their own free will. YouTube didnt pay anyone to do that. Again, to use an analogy, it'll be like saying most software dont have a Linux variant and always seem to have Mac version. Indepedant, rational actors decide to favor Mac, and for that Apple is bad? What should Apple do here - tell creators that you cant publish on App Store unless you create a Linux / Windows version?

> Search is a two-sided market. Google controls the overwhelming majority of search traffic. From the supplier’s perspective, saying “just go to Bing or DuckDuckGo” is almost like telling them to shut down their business, because the audience is not there.

What do you mean? How is searching for 'new york times' on bing.com or ddg.com bad for nyt? bing, ddg, google are all search engines - and they all surface the same information / sites. People seem to prefer (whether by habit or by preference) to Google. But Google isnt saying "if you are on Google Search, you cant be on Bing or DDG) It isnt exclusive, you know?