Is this case decided yet? If I understood the news correctly, they plan to force Google to sell its web browser.
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
190 points (81.2% liked)
Technology
6885 readers
55 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Thanks for checking. I didn't find any other recent news on this topic and the original article is from yesterday.
This is just what the DoJ is asking for. Google will give their proposal in December. Then the judge will rule later in 2025. Then no matter what Google will appeal. Nothing is going to happen for years, if at all.
In Trump’s america google will have the easiest time getting what they want.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now make them sell YouTube... Or better yet, split it into multiple companies.
Edit a typo
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.
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?
YouTube also lost billions for years and years. Not certain they've turned an overall profit yet.
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.
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.
"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.
Guarantee Microsoft is funding this from a shadow shell corporation like all the other times.
Why do we always have comments defending these mega-corps. There's always the "what about..." people saying that something else needing regulating means this mega-corp shouldn't be regulated. How about any of it being regulated is good. We can hopefully get around to the other things eventually, but we can't do it all at the same time. (That, and Trump's adm. probably is going to put a stop to any of it, so just be happy that we've seen anything happen.)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
What worries me is who's gonna buy it
Elon Musk
alphabet
Broadcom?
Hoogle (Google with a mustache)
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?
To whom?
Monkey paw says Oracle
Still better than Meta
Monkey paw says Oracle
Still better than Meta
I'm not so sure about that one chief. I think they both suck pretty hard.
Don't you put that evil on us.
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!<
Why shouldn't they be able to pay apple and mozilla to select google as their default search engine? Will this also be prohibited?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
there are lots of good articles about this news from other sources.
unfortunately the link in this post is an advertorial for snakeoil: tuta published this for the sole purpose of marketing their non-interoperable encrypted email service which has an incoherent threat model.
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.
cool, now do youtube
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
why would anyone buy it when it's primary profit-generating activity is driving traffic to google
There's a lot of reasons to own it, one potential profit source being selling what the default search engine is. Just because Google doesn't own it doesn't mean they won't pay to be the default search. They pay a lot for this on Firefox. (Yes, this is being looked into to and may stop, but they can still sell being an option for the default search engine, or other things.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
when its* primary
Your right.
Your left, my right?
Wow. It's actually happening
And just like that another misinformation "news" site was blocked.
They should donate or sell chrome to the Linux Foundation.
If they sell the browser how will the buyer afford to continue development? We either get more intrusive ads, tracking, or both.
Inb4:
Breaking news, google sells chrome to Oracle
Breaking news, google sells chrome to Adobe
Breaking news, google sells chrome to Microsoft
Breaking news, google sells chrome to Epic Games
Breaking news, google sells chrome to Tencent
With the amount of money that chrome would sell for, I only see this getting much much worse.
Chromium might get shut down and it becomes closed source.
view more: next ›