I don't understand how this reply is in any way relevant to its parent comment.

It is countering your assertion that switching costs are low. It is not easy for a new player to enter the market on an equal footing with Google.

The difficulty of a new player entering the market has nothing to do with end-user switching costs.

There are also high barriers to entry if you want to start a cola company with worldwide distribution, but that doesn't mean Coke has a monopoly.

See you are arguing that only a monopoly is illegal and unethical. Fact is, there are forms of non monopolistic market manipulation that are illegal. In the US, you can't form cartels or segment markets by colluding with competitors. Similar laws apply in Europe.

So why argue about what makes a monopoly?