> I see where you are coming from but the argument would be stronger is Google Chrome refused to open illegal streaming sites etc.
Why would it be stronger? Google has a near-monopoly on search.
> If I ask Siri to give me a link to illegal streaming site and if it refuses, is that cause for concern?
Yes, because you cannot replace Siri on a device you own.
> Google has a near-monopoly on search.
What does that mean? I use kagi, ddg etc. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Google.
Woudl you say HackerNews has a monopoly on tech chatter? Sure seems dominant, but nobody is forcing anyone to use HN. You can use lobsters, or reddit or whatever.
> What does that mean?
It means exactly that: it has near-monopoly on search. On mobile the situation is close to to complete monopoly.
> Woudl you say HackerNews has a monopoly on tech chatter? Sure seems dominant, but nobody is forcing anyone to use HN.
Google literally pays Apple $20 billion a year to force people to use Google only. But that is quite beside the point. The definition of monopoly does not include "forces you to use it".
> It means exactly that: it has near-monopoly on search. On mobile the situation is close to to complete monopoly.
Would you say HackerNews is a monopoly? Any activity that the user has a choice to use something else cannot be a monopoly.
> Google literally pays Apple $20 billion a year to force people to use Google only
Apple pays TSMC $XXX billion dollars to get preferential treatment, but that doesnt make TSMC a monopoly or even Apple a monopoly.
Just because you can use minor players does not mean Google isn't a near-monopoly.
By all accounts Google Search is 85-90% of global search engine market share.
Chrome is "only" 70%.
Edit For anti-competitive purposes and anti-trust regulations the main word is market dominance.