[garinda]

(Won't quote you Eric, to save space, but...)

In a free market economy, the companies that people choose to use, will be the most successful, and therefore they will have influence, and power, if you want to call it that.

I referred earlier to The Sun, Britain's biggest selling Daily, because people want to buy it.

It's owners, and editor, does therefore wield some clout. Which is presumably why Blair brown-nosed them back in 1997, and the paper subsequently publicly proclaimed that their mammary loving readers should vote New Labour. Landslide. Result.

If legislation is passed, limiting access to goods/services that are offered by companies, you end up with the kind of state run/enforced bodies that they had under the old soviet system. The outcome being that there is a poor choice, and the inferior and shoddy become the most widely available.

Politicans have moaned about the 'unfair' power the press barons have had for well over a century.

Google is successful.

That will cease when people don't want to use it.

Politicans trying to limit it's success, by imposing artifical sanctions against it, is wrong. Wrong, if we are to carry on having free choice about what we buy/use.

I think politicans are just jealous.

Wishing only that they had as much power as companies such as Google.

China allows Google, but with the proviso that many political sites aren't listed. Just as in the Middle East Google is permitted, as long as certain civil/sexual right sites are not available to searchers in those locations.

We know Google's a company, out to make profit.

We understand that, and carry on using it, because it's the best at what it does.

This will carry on until we choose to use something better.

Not because some politican fears it's influence.