• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 hour ago

    There’s probably arguments to be made both for and against this ruling. I don’t assume this is all good just because I don’t like Google.

  • @badbytes
    link
    English
    115 hours ago

    “This landmark decision isn’t just about regulating a single company — it’s about standing up for fairness, competition, and a healthier internet ecosystem.”

    Then the DOJ should rule on what a monopoly is, and go after basically every big company. Take the oil markets for example. Give me a break, the DOJ is a joke, and probably took a bribe from Googles competition.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    why would anyone buy it when it’s primary profit-generating activity is driving traffic to google

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    166 hours ago

    People who think this is going to really cause a disruption really did not live through the past thirty years of US tech companies being told to break up only to reform again, only stronger.

    Google also got fuck you money to make upset politicians to disappear.

  • plz1
    link
    English
    127 hours ago

    Misleading headline. They have asked a court to force it, not triggered anything real, yet. Google will fight it hard because its one of their most powerful surveillance tools.

    • @itsnotits
      link
      English
      11 hour ago

      because it’s* one of

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6510 hours ago

    Is this case decided yet? If I understood the news correctly, they plan to force Google to sell its web browser.

    • @InnerScientist
      link
      English
      3010 hours ago

      I don’t think it is, the article doesn’t say much beyond opinions. I also can’t find any news talking about it being decided, just proposed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1310 hours ago

        Thanks for checking. I didn’t find any other recent news on this topic and the original article is from yesterday.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    178 hours ago

    Mixed feelings on this.

    I’m not entirely sure the internet landscape will change that much with google selling the browser side of their business and might only result in less funding and security for web browsers as a whole.

    I say this as a Firefox user, fwiw. I honestly don’t think people only use chrome because google products work better on chrome. Frankly, I’ve never had a problem with a google service on a firefox browser.

    • Fubarberry
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 hours ago

      Yeah, for all people here complain about every web browser being chrome, the average web browser experience is so much better now than it was when Microsoft controlled the typical web browser.

      Google is far from perfect, but the chromium project has resulted in a generally good browser. But I have serious doubts about the future of the chromium project in the hands of Meta or some other tech giant.

  • @AlternatePersonMan
    link
    English
    2910 hours ago

    Now name them sell YouTube… Or better yet, split it into multiple companies.

    • @Donkter
      link
      English
      178 hours ago

      Oh God I don’t want my YouTube hidden behind multiple paywalls of varying quality. I agree that something should be done about it but it’s frankly a miracle of inertia that YouTube hasn’t been more aggressively monetized.

      And yes, before anyone comments with “have you seen YTs monetization!!!”, I do in fact mean even more than the shit show it currently is.

    • @cm0002
      link
      English
      12
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      YT is the one I’m mixed on, on one hand, the ads are annoying AF if you’re not premium and they’re becoming more user hostile towards ad blocking every day

      But on the other hand, hosting and providing bandwidth for video is not cheap. Hosting and providing bandwidth AND allowing users to upload whatever they want no matter the length (I think there’s a limit of 10 hours, which is MORE than generous IMO) OR quality (seriously, who even has the setup to watch 8k videos lol) is REALLY NOT CHEAP

      So who else other than Google can provide what YT provides at scale?

      • @shalafi
        link
        English
        56 hours ago

        YouTube also lost billions for years and years. Not certain they’ve turned an overall profit yet.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 hours ago

          I’m guessing it probably does. It brings in like $30,000,000,000+ a year. What it actually costs to run is seemingly a closely guarded secret, but I’d probably say it’s a fair amount less than the thirty billion, since they aren’t having to pay a third party company or anything for hosting any of it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1910 hours ago

    To whom? Who will then fund Chromium? Also, what will happen to Firefox now Google can no longer fund 88% of Mozilla with their bribes?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        58 hours ago

        Monkey paw says Oracle

        Still better than Meta

        I’m not so sure about that one chief. I think they both suck pretty hard.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 hours ago

        Bruh can’t they make it ots own company and then sell shares? (Prefarably without a majority shareholder) >!Or be forced to make it a nonprofit but that’s too utopian thinking!<

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 hours ago

      Why shouldn’t they be able to pay apple and mozilla to select google as their default search engine? Will this also be prohibited?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 hours ago

      The leading browser on the market? I don’t know the price but I suppose any technology company with enough money. Regarding Chromium, it’s another matter but I suppose that using it in so many browsers without development will not be

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 hours ago

        any technology company with enough money

        I know, that’s the problem. They are all at least somewhat evil.

  • Undearius
    link
    fedilink
    English
    910 hours ago

    This post talks a lot about Google’s search engine. I’m curious how all the issues that were brought up about the search engine will be improved with the browser being sold off.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 hours ago

      Decisions by people who don’t understand, advised by people who don’t want them to understand, funded by people who are prepared to sacrifice a browser to appear like they’re doing something.

  • @BetaDoggo_
    link
    English
    17 hours ago

    If they sell the browser how will the buyer afford to continue development? We either get more intrusive ads, tracking, or both.

    • @PunnyName
      link
      English
      4110 hours ago

      But not business monopolies?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Because this monopoly doesn’t directly affect them in a way that’s obvious to them; but gummnit baaaad.

    • @Mango
      link
      English
      28 hours ago

      Over this?