Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
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.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
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.
And just like that another misinformation "news" site was blocked.
What worries me is who's gonna buy it
Hoogle (Google with a mustache)
Elon Musk
alphabet
Broadcom?
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.
"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.
I'm guessing you're also a one issue voter.
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.)
We can hopefully get around to the other things eventually
I've heard this every election cycle my entire life, particularly from the DNC. "We can't have that because of some arbitrary norm that we have to respect and adhere to that we could totally change, but, oopsies, would ya look at that, we lost the majority, so give us money and elect us and we promise this time we'll get to it! Eventually, after we handle all this other stuff that came up since the last time we got absolutely nothing done to help you, but we promise, this time, for real."
but we can't do it all at the same time.
Says who? We make the rules, it's our government, where in the Constitution does it say "You may only enact legislation that incrementally changes things for the better over the course of decades, assuming none of it is undone?"
so just be happy that we've seen anything happen.
Why? When it doesn't change anything, and it's just going to be undone, why should we be happy about that? Why do we have to keep being "happy" that nothing is changing for the better? Why do we have to keep applauding and cheering and supporting this bullshit when it means absolutely nothing?
This is like someone telling you they're cold, and you light a match and hold it between you both. When they ask why you don't use the match to light some of the logs and paper littered around the room for more warmth, you let the match burn out and tell them they should be happy you did something.
Like, wow, they're still cold, the resources are still scattered around the room unused, the "fire" burnt out shortly after it was lit, and now they're not allowed to complain about it either.
Law enforcement is done on a case by case basis. The laws already exist. Congress doesn't matter for this right now. The courts (and DOJ) have to go through each case individually and see how the law applies. It can't all be done at once, as a matter of fact.
Since we can't do it all at once, the comment above's opinion seems to be we should do nothing because the oil industry needs enforcement first. Someone else will point to another thing.
It's good it's happening at all. The past few years I've seen more anti-monopoly rulings than the rest of my life combined. It's been great. It's all about to end though.
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.
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.
because it's* one of
Is this case decided yet? If I understood the news correctly, they plan to force Google to sell its web browser.
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.
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.
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.)
when its* primary
Your right.
Your left, my right?
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.
Now name them sell YouTube... Or better yet, split it into multiple companies.
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.
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.
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?
~~It's been ruled in court. More details~~
Edit: nope, sorry, thanks to @[email protected] for correction
Only Google being a monopoly has been ruled. The remedy hasn't been decided. And your article is very out of date because the DoJ hadn't even made their proposal then. That only happened this week. Google will give their proposal in December. The decision from the judge comes later in 2025. Then Google will appeal anyway. None of this is going to happen any time soon, and very likely it won't at all given the chances coming to the presidency and their stance towards this sort of government action.
They should donate or sell chrome to the Linux Foundation.
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.
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.
If they sell the browser how will the buyer afford to continue development? We either get more intrusive ads, tracking, or both.
Wow. It's actually happening