this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
128 points (85.6% liked)

Technology

1421 readers
754 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost 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 communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone 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 attacksAny 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 tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf 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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago

What worries me is who's gonna buy it

[–] Free_Thoughts@feddit.uk 1 points 1 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@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 25 minutes ago

Guarantee Microsoft is funding this from a shadow shell corporation like all the other times.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] itsnotits@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

when its* primary

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 17 points 7 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@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

because it's* one of

[–] cron 68 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 31 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cron 14 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 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@lemmy.world 30 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 18 points 8 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@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 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.

[–] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 hours ago

cool, now do youtube

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech 19 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] Damage@feddit.it 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

To whom?

Monkey paw says Oracle

Still better than Meta

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago

Don't you put that evil on us.

[–] MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 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.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 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!<

[–] cron 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech 1 points 2 hours ago

It's been ruled in court. More details

[–] Foni@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech 1 points 2 hours ago

any technology company with enough money

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

[–] parpol@programming.dev 5 points 8 hours ago

They should donate or sell chrome to the Linux Foundation.

[–] Undearius@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 9 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.

[–] lychee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 11 hours ago

Wow. It's actually happening

[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

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