Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine::Google accused DOJ of aiming to force people to use “inferior” search products.
So we have two options:
-
A 52 year old federal judge is somehow tech illiterate in a way that would imply they have absolutely no idea about the fundamentals of modern technology.
-
A federal judge is asking a large number of extremely basic questions to get their answers on official records so that the cases parameters are clearly defined. He is taking extra care because there’s not a lot of direct precedent on these issues.
I’m heavily leaning towards number 2 here. The internet likes to pretend everyone over the age of 40 has no idea how a computer works. The year is 2023. A middle-aged person today was fairly young when computers started to be incorporated into all aspects of society and is well versed in computer literacy. In some ways they are actually much more tech literate than the younger generations. It’s almost certain that he knows the difference between Firefox and Google.
I’m a 53 year old IT person, and I’m leaning towards 1. The level of technology incompetence in the general public is astounding. My wife only knows “Have you tried turning it off and back on again?” And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
My mom uses a computer at her job but confuses the terms computer, internet, browser and email on a regular basis. I wonder what would happen if I restarted the internet as she tells me to sometimes. I could install Linux and she wouldn’t tell.
Still better than her father, who had her operate a casette player for him when she was 2.
I could install Linux and she wouldn’t tell.
Works with grandparents. They don’t even suspect they have Gentoo on their computer.
The law is nuanced out the ass. I sit through depositions every day, and terms of art are a plague, and you can say something, but it can be interpreted differently because in such and such a field it’s a term of art, etc. That’s my hope.
I am fully on board with we need more judges, we need younger judges. But I don’t think that’s because they’re incapable of learning. In fact, I think there’s be value to someone going in blind, being given all the facts, and making their determination that way. It just sucks that something we value so highly can be determined based on the presentation of counsel.
My wife only knows “Have you tried turning it off and back on again?” And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
Next step: “Is it even powered?”
To be Dennis Ritchie was born in 40-ies. He would be 80 y.o. if he didn’t die in 2013. And he is most literate person on this planet.
Honestly same. The passage of time is weird
People think 52 is like super old… but really that’s just Gen X
Hell you really wanna know how warped our perception of time is?
Most people think 20 years ago Mario was an 8bit platformer that revitalized interest in video games after Atari killed the medium with oversaturation and nonexistent quality control.
What was Mario 20 years ago? An aging mascot with a divisive summer themed pollution game that I loved but others seemed to hate, on a console that only did well with diehard fans… 20 years ago Nintendo wasn’t the big man on campus, that was Sony with the PS2 despite it being weaker than GCN and Xbox.
Currently playing through Super Mario Sunshine. Looks pretty decent with HD textures.
Dude SMS was such a great game, big part of my childhood. I loved Luigi’s Mansion, too.
I was very disappointed with Luigi’s Mansion sequels. I like that the original Luigi’s Mansion was able to have a genuinely haunting atmosphere, that still managed to feel in place with the Mario universe. I was disappointed that portrait ghosts never really made a return, and that our ghosts were downgraded from actually scary premises like a baby that can warp dimensions to generic cartoon antics. Like this really was baby’s first horror game. A Fatal Frame for the kiddos, or is it more accurate to say that Fatal Frame is Luigi’s Mansion for the non kiddos? I think Fatal Frame came after Luigi’s Mansion
Luigi’s Mansion 3 is especially bad with this because although I do like the main villain a lot, most of the ghosts you see are just the standard blue one again and again, you don’t have the rich variety that even Dark Moon pulled off. And oh boy did I love the ghosts of shy guys in the first game.
Kinda lost me with Mario
I agree, none of that comparison made sense. It relies too much on prior knowledge/association.
Lemme break it down then…
Most people, if asked what a Mario game, one of the most iconic and best selling franchises in gaming history… beaten out only by Pokemon (owned by the same company) was like 20 years ago, they’d describe this - https://youtu.be/7qirrV8w5SQ
When in reality, Mario 20 years ago, was this - https://youtu.be/WIHFSgPv3Ak
This is due to how bad of a perception of time we as humans seem to have… It works for other things
20 years ago “Ah yeah that’s when we were using floppy disks right?”
Heck my brother’s a pretty sharp guy, but at one point he seemed to think my dad’s generation grew up with black and white silent films, and not… Friday the 13th or Ghostbusters
Well, in the 1970/1980 there actually were still a lot of black and white movies on TV. “The Streets of San Francisco” “Kojak” “Dragnet” not to mention the endless reruns of Stan and Laurel.
Well you got me there, plus when my dad does like to watch Mash, it says go to when he I just want some noise. Which I can understand, I usually have a let’s play of some game going. My grandmother has a recording of rain, I have a recording of the Blair Witch volume 1 Ruston Park going. And know that he’s not what the character is called, speech to text is being a bastard and I can’t use my hands right now
Wow, I’d never come across super Mario sunshine before - cheers!
I work as a website developer and I think number one is so, so much more likely. The average person barely knows how to use a computer at all, let alone how it works and different terminology.
An older, non-IT person - an actual judge, yeah I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt here - they likely don’t know lol
Not sure why “old+judge” automatically equals “tech illiterate.” The judge in another high-profile Google case taught himself to code
The article you link says the judge already knew how to code beforehand.
He’s been coding in BASIC for decades, actually, writing programs for the fun of it: a program to play Bridge, written as a gift for his wife; an automatic solution for the board game Mastermind, which he is immensely fond of; and most ambitiously, a sprawling multifunctional program with a graphical interface that helps him with yet another of his many hobbies, ham radio.
Yes, because he taught himself.
“At some point, I looked at the BASIC book and decided I would learn that.” He taught himself straight from the book, which he recalls was “pretty straightforward.”
It’s because these things work by probabilities. Generally when you think of older people who aren’t working as IT professionals, you wouldn’t expect them to be great with computers - and you’d probably be right.
Do you really think that a judge that taught himself to code would be common-place and would be the norm? That judge is awesome, but he is very clearly an outlier lol
I think the probability of somebody who had to pass a Barr and likely worked as a lawyer in 2005 knowing the difference between Google and firefox is pretty damn high tbh
I really don’t mean to be rude however I don’t think there’s any polite sounding way of asking this, have you worked in IT? You would be surprised how many lawyers, doctors, etc all kinds of genius professionals absolutely do not know how computers work, and even who don’t care to learn them.
You’re good, but no I haven’t worked in IT, I’ve job hopped in manufacturing most of my life I just went to high school in the early 2000s and in my experience those particular things were ubiquitous enough to be common knowledge. I fully understand that there’s people out there who have no idea how to operate a computer, it also makes sense to me why an IT person would see the most numerous and most extreme examples of this, but I think precisely because of that you have a bias in the other direction because everybody who has to come to you is likely an idiot, that doesn’t mean everybody who isn’t an IT professional is also an idiot.
I agree, that’s a decent point, but I have a counterpoint. I think with sheer numbers alone, especially when it comes to the context of computers would give more accurate results even if they could be somewhat biased. A larger sample size is more likely to give a more accurate idea of a picture of what’s going on. I also think if you compare an IT person, versus a non-IT person, the IT person is going to be able to identify Firefox being a search engine or a browser 10 times out of 10 lol, whereas with a non-IT person, those numbers could be anywhere except for 10/10, most likely anyway. lol
Knowing how to code doesn’t mean you know the difference between a search engine and a web browser.
I have soon a PhD in computer tech related subject, program for living, and am a lot younger than the judge, and if you ask me if Mozilla makes a search engine I would say I have no idea, they’ve made a lot of stuff. And if you asked me how Google’s SEM tools work I would ask wtf is SEM.
-
I’m disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:
While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today’s tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google’s SEM tools.
What did he actually say?!
Plus it’s an opening statement. It’s an intro that tells the finder of fact (traditionally a jury, but for cases like this it’s the judge) what evidence you’re going to present during the trial. You want that person to be able to place that argument in context, but the very nature of explaining that “I’m going to show you a bunch of stuff” is going to have a bunch of “well I haven’t seen it yet, so can you tell me what to expect” responses.
Especially if there’s a discussion of the different contractual relationships and the different companies and products. I’ve seen plenty of judges insist on clarity when communicating about things that might have more than one meaning: a company that has the same name as a product that company produces (Toyota makes Toyotas), a legal entity that has the same name as a place (Madison Square Garden banned someone from Madison Square Garden), etc.
For all we know, the confusion might be one of the lawyer’s fault, for using the words Mozilla or Firefox interchangeably, the way this article seems to.
|unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine
It is neither. It is a foundation that maintains a browser. It is like asking if Microsoft is a browser or a search engine.
if Microsoft is a browser or a search engine.
yes
Allow me to introduce ‘I have problem with The Google’.
E: wording.
So true
It would be naive to expect Google to be broken by anti-trust laws, just look how microsoft dodged that in the 2000 and went back to the same practices today . this is a circus show
<s>Welcome to American politics. </s>
Welcome to politics.
You forgot the /s frienderino
Tips fedora
How can anyone make a judgement about something they know nothing about? We are so doomed.
They do so all the time - do you think judges are experts in every thing? The judge needs to understand the law. It’s up to the counsel to ensure they have experts to explain the details.
Removed by mod
They don’t need to be an expert. They need to be people that have basic knowledge of how the world around them works, and the ability to learn new things as that world changes. I mean that’s the basic requirement at any job I have ever had, why are they exempt?
I’m assuming they asked what it was? Or for clarification? If so, then they learned.
Wasnt there that judge who went and learned programming in order tp preside over a software patents case?
As if this has doomed humanity before.
Judging without knowing has been practically sport for most of humanity’s history.
Removed by mod
Oh for sure. I was just pinpointing the fatalistic reaction.
It’s not “fatalistic”, it’s “fine” this way.
A judge doesn’t have to know what mozilla is before a trial starts. Council can tell them what it is, how/whether it matters to the case, etc.
It’s the lawyers that have the duty to inform the judge. You can’t rely on every judge knowing everything about all topics. And they don’t really need to…
I know what you’re saying, and I understand it. But again, I’m not talking about how I perceive it, but how the other commenter described it (“we’re doomed!”) And like you, I thought it was an overreaction.
Ahh, gotcha.
Right? It’s a good thing this judge is asking questions.
When asked about a perceived ignorance in computers, the judge proclaimed, “I’m not ignorant about computers! In fact, just last week I finished Space Quest, and I’m now getting through Leisure Suit Larry!” The judge’s report, written using WordPerfect 5.1, is expected to be released soon.
The people making decisions often don’t know shit about what they’re deciding. I used to wonder why huge companies with a shitload of cash make horrible decisions for their products. Hint: It’s not because they hire bad engineers.
I feel like most average people (regardless of age) don’t even know alternatives to internet browsers exist, so why would I expect a judge to know? They’re obviously not experts in every field, it’s up to the attorneys to inform them and persuade them one way or another.
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
I don’t think it’s that. I think most people want a judge who’s knowledgeable enough on the subject that he/she’s actually judging.
Bringing in experts to educate him during the court case is not right, he’s supposed to be able to judge if the experts are actually experts and know what they’re talking about, by the time the actual case is happening.
I really think it’s a matter of context; how one was raised, what kind of people one interacts with, interest, etc.
I’m older and i know so much more than most of my age group. I learned a long, long time ago to not be afraid to try things out, my pc is not going to explode; to investigate when i’m stuck with some computer stuff; and i have adult kids who teach me things that i don’t know enough about or share their views. Some of the communities i subscribed to are about tech, FOSS, android etc. I’m always really open to boost my knowledge.
Yeah, that’s great and all. But this judge shouldn’t be ruling over this case if he doesn’t know the basics of today’s technology.
So I got to wonder, when that judge goes home at night, does his family, and especially his kids, let him know what everyone is saying about him in relation to this article?
And then I wonder how that affects him going into court the next day, when he has to ask more ‘dumb’ questions, does he actually ask or not.
His job is to ask those questions. If he doesn’t do it, his reasoning will be flawed and then the case will restart with a new judge when appealed, wasting everyone’s time and money. I gotta imagine that’s more embarrassing to a judge than asking these questions.
I don’t care, i use Duck.
This guy ducks
But does he go?
So, you’re saying people should go get Ducked?
I mean, i use Duckduckgo dude lmao
I think the case is crystal clear even to someone who has no technical knowledge. The question is whether the judge will be swayed by the lobbying power of the Big Tech
It’s just one of the pipes in the interweb plumbing system duh. (That’s actually a slightly better metaphor than I was going for come to think of it.)
Maybe the browser is more like a faucet and the search engine is like… the city water utility? Obviously that analogy has flaws too.
You could say your tv is like a browser and the “guide” is like a search engine. That analogy is a bit better.
deleted by creator
Mehta is the name of the judge.
deleted by creator
