I agree that season 1 is far more engaging but imo, that’s mainly because the level of intrigue that I felt at the beginning of the story was insane — they were great at keeping that intrigue rolling in an interesting way. But that kind of mystery can only last so long, because it grows weaker as the audience learns more about the characters and world.

I think there was a part of me that felt disappointed by season 2 simply by the fact it couldn’t give me what I felt during season 1, and actually, I wouldn’t want that — the final episodes of a series shouldn’t have the same kind of tension of the beginning of the story.

Overall, I’d say that season 1 is excellent (in particular, there were some visually impressive and stylish sequenced that I loved) — Riveting" was the word OP used. Season 2 is also decent. I don’t recall it feeling rushed, and it does end decently.

I agree with you about the core of the problem, but the reason the monopoly is the thing being focussed on is because that’s the legal basis against Google that we have right now (speaking as someone who enthusiastically followed the proceedings).

The crucial bit now that Google has been deemed an illegal monopolist is how this gets resolved, because of the possible remedies to this situation, some are better for user privacy, and some are worse. This is an opportunity to do some real good here on that front.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, actually getting to a solution will take time, because of how Google will try to haggle down whatever remedy is suggested. This seems likely to be easier to do under a Trump administration.

It’s not about dispelling any ulterior motive. The idea of anti-monopoly enforcement actions is that if the “business ecosystem” is good and healthy, then other companies who don’t own Chrome will be able to compete with whoever owns Chrome, giving the consumer choice that people who like the free market say will reduce consumer exploitation. (If you can’t tell from my tone, I am dubious, at best, of this logic)