Alright, imagine you're in a huge playground (the internet), and there are different games to play, like online games and watching videos (webpages).

Google is like the biggest kid in the playground. They have many popular games (like YouTube and Gmail) that lots of kids love playing.

The government says Google made special rules to keep other kids from playing their own cool games with as many people. This way, only Google's games get played a lot.

But Google says they just want everyone to play nicely together, and if other kids make really fun games, lots of players will come and join them too.

The judge needs to decide if Google made special rules to keep other kids away from their playground games or not. So, there's a big argument happening right now. While the argument is going on, Google's playground popularity (stock price) is going up a little bit today. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some potential critiques and inconsistencies from different angles:

1. **Justice Department's Position:**
- *Critique:* The Justice Department (DOJ) argues that Google has a trifecta of monopolies, but the focus is primarily on digital advertising, which might seem like a narrow niche to ordinary consumers.
- *Inconsistency:* While the DOJ claims Google's market share in open-web display advertising is over 50%, they also mention that this share has been decreasing as competition increases. These two points seem contradictory.

2. **Google's Defense:**
- *Critique:* Google downplays its dominance by citing a decreasing market share, but it doesn't address the structural issues and barriers to entry that might keep competitors at bay.
- *Inconsistency:* Google dismisses the government's case as "persistent complaints of a handful of Google's rivals," implying insignificance. However, regulators in multiple jurisdictions are taking action against Google, suggesting broader concern.

3. **Court Decisions:**
- *Critique:* The fact that different judges have ruled differently in separate cases (one agreeing with the DOJ and one awaiting a final decision) shows the complexity of the issues and lack of clear consensus on Google's market power.
- *Inconsistency:* The expected timelines for decisions also vary, with Judge Brinkema to rule by the end of the year and the District of Columbia judge next summer. This timeline inconsistency could slow down any enforcement actions against Google.

4. **Benzinga's Reporting:**
- *Critique:* While Benzinga provides updates on both sides of the story and market impact, it lacks personal commentary or analysis, which could provide unique insights.
- *Inconsistency:* The article mentions Alphabet shares are up but doesn't tie this directly to the case's developments or Google's defense, despite discussing market reactions elsewhere in the article.

Based on the article, here's a breakdown of the sentiment towards Google and its parent company Alphabet:

1. **Justice Department and Plaintiffs**:
- Bearish/Negative: The DOJ alleges that Google has monopolies in several areas of digital advertising (display advertising, ad exchange market, browsers like Chrome) and seeks divestment and other remedies.
- Quotes: "One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here" (Julia Tarver Wood, DOJ lawyer). "Google’s unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners."

2. **Google/Alphabet**:
- Neutral to slightly defensive: Google argues that the DOJ's case focuses on a narrow niche and its market share has been decreasing as competition increases.
- Quotes: "The government’s case against Google is focused on a narrow slice of digital advertising... and [boils] down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers."

Overall, the sentiment in this article leans towards bearish/negative for Google and Alphabet due to the significant allegations and proposed remedies from the DOJ. However, Google presents a neutral to slightly defensive stance.