Note: Original report by Bloomberg, article by Reuters proxied by Neuters to bypass paywall.
Yes, regulate the web browsers where you can just download librewolf or brave, but don’t do anything about the criminal ISPs and wireless network service providers.
I know, right? Why deal with Problem X when Problem Y also exists?
Except you’re not dealing with anything. What do you think happens once Google sells Chrome? They release a new browser a month later, and it will be better than Chrome because nobody has the manpower to develop a web browser at the same speed as Google. This is a waste of time.
I’d assume the ruling would also stipulate that they don’t develop a new browser for X years. Otherwise they could be right back in a day by forking Chromium.
So you’re saying a company should be prohibited from developing a product because it might be better than the competition? I don’t think you guys even realize what you’re advocating for.
I do. The exact reason this legal framework is in place
Can’t argue with that. Have a nice day.
HA!
What a joke.
Better hurry, Trump’s rubber stamp DOJ will kill this faster than a cop encountering a dog.
For the right price.
I heard the same for Android and I was pretty supportive of the sentiment until I listened to the Android Faithful podcast episode discussing it…
If Google doesn’t develop Android, nobody will. Whoever buys Android, we don’t know if they will maintain the AOSP. Android has been an equal parts rollercoaster of good and bad ideas thanks to Google, but it has had someone do that…
Maybe LineageOS could take over, but that’s just insane wishful thinking.
Nokia, Siemens, Oracle, Linux Foundation, Tesla, IBM, OpenAI…there a hundreds of companies wealthy enough in that space that would not pose a consumer protection issue.
[Google controls how people view the internet]
This doesn’t quite make sense. How does Chrome “control how people view the internet”? Isn’t html/css the main thing that controls how people view the internet?
[ and what ads they see in part through its Chrome browser, which typically uses Google search,]
But it is trivial to change your default search agent right?
Is this move something we should view as a good thing, and if so, then why?
Essentially, everything is Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Brave, Edge etc are chrome.
Most people are using chrome.
Google controlling chrome controls what the vast majority of people use to see the internet, and then they change chrome to make it harder for you to block ads that they want to show.
There’s no reason for chrome to break ad blockers unless it’s owned by an ad company.
Edit: Google done some other shady things by owning it in the past as well.
Steam, Spotify, Discord. Whoops, all Chromium.
Chrome has a massive market share and Google abuses that market share by breaking web standards, and pushing people towards Chrome because “the competition doesn’t work”.
They act in bad faith and abuse their position to more deeply entrench their position in anticompetitive monopolistic ways.
That’s the Crux of it.
Breaking up monopolies is a good thing, and Google arguably holds too much power. Chromium is being used in 70% of browsers, and the decision how to implement and develop web standards are all in the hand of one for profit company, which had little interest in keeping things open and accessible (and private).
A quote from this Register article sums it up nicely:
What we are forced to assume in turn is that Chrome is built by the professional developers working for an ad agency with the primary goal of building a web browser that serves the needs of other professional developers working for the ad agency’s prospective clients.
Chromium is being used in 70% of browsers
To me, I don’t think that should be an issue in anything. That’s up to browser makers. They are able to use whatever they want, and they will use whatever is easiest/best for their usage. They are also free to use WebKit (Safari’s engine), Gecko (Mozilla), or roll their own. This just sounds like you want to punish someone because they made something everyone preferred just because everyone preferred it.
It’s different when you are “forced” to use it (use ours or we won’t let you on our devices, like iOS, or use ours and we will lower/cut our fees for other things you want/need, like many different companies). But when the public is truly free to use what they want and they all want the same thing, then it shouldn’t be used as a reason to punish them.
This is probably the real reason corporate America had no interest in endorsing Harris.
They can just wait it out until it becomes the corpo-friendly Dept. of Injustice on Jan. 20th.
Rad. Do Microsoft next.
Again! Again!
If you’re talking about edge browser, edge is chrome.
Ew. So if someone likes their girlfriend to tie them up and edge them, that means they enjoy a breach of privacy, and getting google involved?
Google does like to watch.
I‘ve actually when something like this will happen. A few years ago German energy providers and distributors needed to split, because it gives you an unfair advantage if you own both. Whole companies were split in two. People working for years together would no longer work together. In the end consumer were much better off after the split. I feel the same way with internet browser. It is unfair if you own the infrastructure (Chrome, energy grid) and the services that run on it (YouTube, power plants).
Chrome isn’t even developed by anyone but Google.
Oh, the DOJ is ran by idiots, my bad.
What? The fact it’s owned & developed by Google is the whole point
This is how the DOJ is planning to approach dismantling Google’s illegal monopoly, by breaking chrome - the world’s most used browser - away from them
Ugh. Just link to Reuters.
It has a soft paywall.
It has a soft paywall.
I think the common practice is to link to the original in the URL bar and then use the body text to do paywall/loginwall removals.
Then leave that to every one else to deal with; don’t make other people wear your tin-foil hat. Or just start your own community and call it “Dot’s Offbrand Extravaganza” or something.
Pretty sure this is more about access and performance than privacy. I never knew about this site before, but damn, a news article that only contains words on a page and loads quickly? I thought news websites were supposed to be hostile to users?
don’t make other people wear your tin-foil hat
The words, they mean nothing!
🥴
They are going to ask a judge like they have no fucking balls.
It’s called “Distribution of Power”.
We should be thankful it’s still here.Distribution of power into corporate hands. Oh, im willing to bet it is here to stay.
This seems like a sensible consumer protection to not let the ad company control the biggest web browser. I won’t hold my breath, but I’m glad they are trying something.
AWS should also be split from Amazon.
Why force one company to sell off their browser? Shouldn’t MS have to sell Edge and Apple sell Safari?
Microsoft having IE/Edge as the default browser has already cost them in the past. I don’t think Apple faced anything with Safari.
The problem today with chrome is how prevalent it is and how that influences the main product of the internet (advertising), which happens to be Google’s mais product too. Apple can at least make the argument that they make their money with the hardware, not the browser.
Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.
Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.
I like this idea if only because it means I don’t have the default web browser hanging around only ever having been used to download another web browser.
apple has, on mobile.
I think this is something even Elon Musk could get behind.
What if Linux foundation buys Chrome?
They already have Servo.
Do they have the money? What is the value of Chrome anyways, if you can’t do monopoly things with it? About as much as Firefox?
And whoever buys it won’t also have some kind of ulterior motive? Chrome isn’t likely to be a money-maker on its own. If it were, Firefox would have less trouble staying afloat. Anyone who buys Chrome most likely will have plans for it that are no more in the end-user’s best interest than Google’s.
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)
Yeah any company controlled by the rich will act immorally
We can at least make sure it’s multiple companies who will fight each other instead of one supreme leader megacorp
