Google is offering a far more pared-down solution to the court’s ruling that it illegally monopolized search

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can we just stop and appreciate for a moment what a fucking outrage it is that Google is allowed to negotiate its own punishment at all?

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    They can keep chrome if they open source everything and remove all tracking, telemetry, and calling home of any sort, artificial crippling of addons via manifestV3, stop blocking blockers, stop injecting ads, stop breaking APIs, stop asynchronous and default DNS, stop forcing safebrowsing (URL monitoring).

    What else have I missed?

    • Celestus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m guessing they would not be interested in keeping Chrome under those conditions. Those are all things that give them leverage, which is the reason they need to split

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    7 months ago

    We don’t need to pay bribes to stay the default search engine so long as we get to keep making the monopolist browser that bans adblockers.

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Chrome is the exact thing they shouldn’t keep. Their main weapon together with the search engine.

    Anything but Chrome.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’d be cool if at some point in the future Android and their Advertisement business were forced to split. Be a dream if they had to make Android open source again like it used to be.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        IMHO that kind of advertisement business should be plain illegal. There are parts of it which are cheating, ultimately aimed at plausible deniability for “pay to be recommended” stuff. And what’s not cheating there, is something worse - commercial surveillance.

        Advertisement relates to competition for customer’s attention the same way as lying relates to competition for listener’s approval. It’s just harmful.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 months ago

    I wish I could get found guilty and still be able to negotiate on equal footing with the prosecution about what my punishment was going to be.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Normally I would laugh at them offering to resolve a second case to avoid judgement in the first one, but sadly they probably have enough influence to make it happen.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      7 months ago

      it’s a huge deal for google. they control the browser used by the vast majority of users, and the engine behind the one (such as edge, opera, vivaldi, etc) used by still more. they rely on those users to see and interact with ads to make money.

      besides the obvious–driving traffic to their web properties that have their ads; they get to siphon off all that sweet user data which makes their ads ‘more valuable’, and control addon functionality and restrictions as well as the primary ‘marketplace’ where those addons come from. their ultimate goal of killing off ad blockers completely, the limits mv3 puts on adblockers is just the next step in that direction.

      should a third-party acquire control over chrome’s development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        All good points, but even without Chrome they became one of the biggest companies in the history of Earth. Even without Chrome they’ll still have Android and will undoubtedly spit out a Chromev2 browser experience that suckers will flock to - and even without Chrome they’ll still likely control all of that search traffic.

        Hey if it kills their fingerprinting plans, I’m all for it, but are they going to be prevented from developing a browser? That’s like not being allowed to develop a car. Which - again, fine by me, but still unlikely.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      Chrome, as the damn-near-monopoly rendering engine, gives Google hegemony over web standards. That’s incredibly valuable because it puts them in a position to (e.g.) inflict DRM on the world.

    • const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      Their desperation to hold onto it speaks volumes about how valuable it is to them. I’m sure they get tons of juicy browsing data that they don’t want to give up.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes but how will some other company who doesn’t run a successful ad network make aenough money from owning Chrome browser to keep it going?

  • Electric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t get the boner the feds have for making Google sell Chrome. Maintaining a browser looks like a huge investment and as bad as Google is, there are much worse companies that would jump at the chance to buy it. Imagine some Tencent-tier corporation making you pay to have the ability to install extensions.

    • albert180@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      Google can Set Standards to their own Advantage, e.g. with regards to Tracking which reinforces their Monopoly on Things Like Ads, the Same reason they crippled all the AdBlockers with ManifestV3 on Chromium-based Browsers

      And the only alternative that isn’t Chromium-based is Firefox. (Or Safari with WebKit). All other Browsers use Chromium

      So it would be really good for everyone if they were forced to sell Chrome

      • john89@lemmy.caBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Chrome’s ubiquity is bad for browsers.

        I’m glad I switched back to Firefox after learning that Google removed AdNauseam from their addon store. It’s an app that clicks ads in addition to blocking them. It wasn’t breaking any rules, but google removed it and since there wasn’t sufficient backlash it was never restored.

        That kind of scummy behavior should never be rewarded with continued patronage.

      • Electric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Any company can do that. That’s why it’s more important to have new browsers (THAT AREN’T CHROMIUM, LOOKING AT YOU EDGE) for competition. Making a company sell the browser used by the majority of people is absolutely not the answer. That’s gambling.

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Gambling? LOL.

          The normal solution to a monopoly is forced breakup and divesture. Why does Google deserve to be above the law?

        • albert180@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No, not every company can afford to Bulldoze the competition in the Browser Market because they have indefinite deep pockets from the Ad Business.

          If that unfair advantage goes away there will be more competition again in the Browser Segment .

          Also Marketshare can grow and shrink quick

          • legion02@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            With the expected costs of a web browser by the general public being $0, what company would want it that isn’t going to do that? Even Firefox survives off ad revenue. There is no “browser market”, there’s an ad market.