> whether this tends to the good / bad / neutral will take a much longer time to sus out
This conveniently implies that nothing should or can be done about Google’s known, current abuses. After all, in the grand arc of time, who’s to say they won’t have had a positive impact by someone’s reckoning?
How does the first sentence follow from the second? The possibility that a company does good "in the grand arc of time" is no excuse for not holding them to the law.
Now if you're saying "negative effects", then comparing to longrun impacts is fine. But "abuses" is a much stronger claim, and enforcement needn't have anything to do with estimates of longterm benefit.
This conveniently implies that nothing should or can be done about Google’s known, current abuses. After all, in the grand arc of time, who’s to say they won’t have had a positive impact by someone’s reckoning?