You have benefited my life immensely, so I will take the time to write the most helpful response I can.
*What is the nature of competition in the free market?*
The premise that Google’s success constitutes a monopoly that must be dismantled to protect consumers is rooted in a flawed interpretation of the market and the moral principles governing it.
In a free market, companies make money by offering the products and services demanded by customers. Google's dominance is not the result of coercion but its ability to meet customer demand effectively. Antitrust law declares that the choices of billions of individuals are wrong — not because those trading with the company have been treated unfairly (if they had, they wouldn’t have traded), but because those who know better through some mystical connection with the good declare it so using arbitrary standards.
There have been many competitors to Google, with at least one of them extremely well funded. There are other massive internet-scale companies that could compete with Google, though they’ve often failed in past attempts. Punishing the owners of Google for its success is to punish the very qualities that drive progress and prosperity.
You suggest that Google's control over the search index and its associated business models warrant government intervention to force “fair” access, because it would promote competition. Whatever else you mean by “fair”, you certainly don’t mean “terms that Google would find agreeable”. If one of the parties to a transaction is an unwilling participant, then it cannot be a fair transaction. We have names for this when the coercing party is anyone but the government: blackmail, protection rackets, theft, mugging, and so on.
*What about property rights?*
Simply put, Google’s indexes are the property of Google’s shareholders. Their property was created through decades of sustained investment and innovation. To force it to share its core technologies with competitors would be a gross violation of property rights—the very foundation of a free and productive society.
Your proposal to treat Google’s search index as an "essential facility" that must be shared “fairly” is a call for expropriation—the forced redistribution of Google’s property for the benefit of those whose sole claim to it is that they have not earned it.
The entire argument against Google is that they must be punished because they are successful. Kagi, even as a PBC, will one day be subject to the exact same arguments if it creates as much value as Google—someone will claim that some aspect of Kagi’s operations constitute a monopoly and Kagi should be forced to provide access to some data or service.
*What does it mean for the government to intervene?*
You claim consumers are harmed by the lack of choice in search experiences. Well, what about me? I love your product and pay for it. So do another 32,633 other subscribers. Apparently, we are free to choose your product, and I’m certain many of us advocate for your products to our friends and family. But your product isn’t for everyone. Maybe not even for most. If people want Google and free search, and no one’s rights are being violated, by what authority does anyone get to tell them they are wrong?
Consumers choose Google because they think it meets their needs, not because they are coerced into using it.
Government’s only tool is violence. It can force people to do something (rare, and usually ineffective), or force people to not do something (very common, and usually equally ineffective but with disastrous side effects). Government can’t create "more diverse competition" by forcing Google’s to share its property; competition is the result of companies striving to innovate and offer better products. Government can’t level the playing field by forcing the competitors to do better, it can only cut off the legs of the best players to bring them down to the level of the competition.
Were your proposal for the Google index actually implement, I speculate it would be a few short years until you would see the government declare all other company’s indices to be illegal and subject to regulation--after all, if its a public good, then it must be supported and defended by the public against threats. I would expect to see forced mergers of other indices into the Google index.
*What about non-moral arguments?*
I’m not going to go into detail, but based on my education and extensive past research, in good faith I assert the following to be true: there are no documented instances of long-lasting monopolies that are not perpetuated by governments; every antitrust intervention has made consumers materially worse off; government interventions nearly always have the effect of significantly reducing competition.
If you identify of a robust counter example to any of those claims, you could probably win a Nobel prize.
*What could you do instead?*
A judge has made an unjust ruling advancing an unjust law toward unjust ends--that doesn’t mean the conversation should shift to deciding on the best unjust punishments. That would be a contradiction: there is no such thing as the most-just-unjust punishment.
You could continue your education and advocacy of the true cost of “free” search. Take out an OpEd in NYT hammering Apple’s duplicitous claims of being privacy respecting while sending every customer’s most intimate thoughts to the Google monstrosity by default. Demonstrate the cost to privacy. Demonstrate how your product exposes resources that are hidden by the search giants. Show people the super powers they can have for a modest fee.
And build a better product. Hell, make a Kagi Phone—I’d preorder one even if it were years away from release—and free us from the Apple/Google hegemony.