this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
539 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

67338 readers
4622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up its case against Google's alleged monopoly, suggesting the government could eventually force the company to sell its widely-used Chrome browser. The move is part of the DoJ's push to challenge Google's hold over the digital advertising and search engine markets.

The Justice Department's latest legal action accuses Google of engaging in anticompetitive behavior by unfairly using its dominance in search and advertising to prop up its other services, most notably Chrome. The government argues that Google's browser and vast data ecosystem have given the company an outsized advantage over competitors, stifling innovation and harming consumers. By bundling Chrome with its Android operating system, Google has built an extensive network that could limit consumer choice and make it difficult for smaller firms to compete.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

the browser itself doesn't matter. Google have had 10 years to do what they want with the specs for html, CSS and JavaScript, to define everything from browser extension APIs to the http protocol itself. they have won. not only have they spent a decade architecting the web in a way that mostly benefits them, they have made those specifications so bloated and complicated that nobody can develop a competitor from scratch. it took years to undo the damage wrought by ie6's stagnation but this is different. this shit can't be undone. it's fucked forever

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It would be better to not allow Google to have a major stake in the control of the Chromium project itself. Same for Android, force them to spin AOSP off into a nonprofit or sell it to EFF or something and forbid them from having a huge stake in it.

Let them use it for their own products, but remove their financial influence over the underlying software.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Spinning off AOSP into something like Mozilla would massively boost its appeal. I myself left android cuz of privacy issues (no I can’t use GrapheneOS, I need access to my banking apps).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Use shit banking apps on GOS from 6 of them from 3 countries , no issus what so ever. Apple has privacy issues as well. You can also use other roms with microG and aurorastore

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

or pay a generous fee of %0.00001 of your yearly earnings to make it go away

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Which tech company would buy Chrome from Google? I just can't think of a single tech company that could be an improvement over Google owning Chrome.

  • Amazon

  • Apple

  • Meta

  • Microsoft

  • Oracle

What about media companies? I don't see consumers benefiting from this.

  • Comcast

  • Disney

  • Netflix

  • Viacom

What about telecom? I still don't see consumers benefiting from this.

  • AT&T

  • T-Mobile

  • Verizon

What about foreign companies? Will they be even allowed to buy Chrome? I'm not sure.

  • LG

  • Philips

  • Samsung

  • Sony

The more I think about it, this won't end well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Sell it to Canonical

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Sell it to IBM so they can end all support lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Of those companies, Apple seems like the best option due to their business goals (privacy). Though I am not fully sure why they'd want to as they already have a browser with a relative market share dominance and ecosystem.

Realistically, it would make sense to see Microsoft try again, it would instantly get 70% of the world to use "Edge", so their goals are met. Chrome already has the modern web standards, so it might just mean slower progression of the web in the future.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Apples business isn't privacy. Apples business is selling privacy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I don't disagree, it's more of a matter of least evil.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Apple seems like the best option due to their business goals (privacy).

Lol. Lmao, even.

Sorry for the flippant comment, but it's so incredibly wrong that I need to highlight the ridiculousness. TBF to you, it's a common misconception due to Apple marketing's lies, and our regulatory agencies unable/unwilling to do anything about companies that lie like Apple does.

Microsoft would be even worse.

The best outcome IMO is to kill Chrome, Edge, AND Safari, and force users to scatter and find an alternative on their own. There will need to be some way to prevent all big tech from trying to compete here too (Facebook, Amazon, etc), as those are incentivized to monopolize exactly like Google did, and we shouldn't have to wait another 2 decades for the government to do something about it.

There will be some growing pains as people initially end up on shitty/scammy browsers, but eventually the market will do its thing and browser devs will compete for marketshare.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Is Microsoft even eligible? Wasn't their anti-trust suit over IE basically about this same thing?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Chromium is already there and companies like Microsoft have their own forks so... Yeah I think there's no point of buying Chrome.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

It's the most popular web browser in the world. Direct access to the browser windows and browsing data of the majority of Internet users would be the point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago

A direct “donation” to Trump would instantly fix this.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago

I'd cheer if I thought this was anything except a blackmail play when a Trump administration is now involved. They'll buy him off and it'll all be back to status quo by fall.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Google should do the power play and completely open source the browser.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

But Chrome is already just Chromium with some binary blobs. Chromium itself even has sync and Google services at this point.

Besides, what would that change in regards to who develops it?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (2 children)

the doj doesn't care about monopolies; the doj just wants to punish people who don't push fascist agendas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Not true. This lawsuit has been in the works for a long time. IIRC the investigation started towards the end up the first Trump admin, was completed, brought to trial, and won by the Biden admin, and now is being completed under Trump again.

Don't believe the MAGA lies about government agencies being partisan hacks. They're generally staffed by people who believe in the mission and put that ahead of politics. Under Trump, a lot of good people are leaving, but the ones playing the loyalty game can stay and keep working.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Google’s ad network and YouTube are pushing the agenda more than pretty much everyone.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I thought so too because I only get horrific conservative nonsense from their platforms but turns out they've been vearing left lately, delisting conservative news and banning far right advertisers.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They're an open platform. Anyone can buy ad time on their platforms. It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with people buying ad time.

If you're going to be pissed, then be pissed. Just be right.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

Just thinking one step further: If I have capital, I control the ads and content.

Thank god the rich are interested in human rights.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Wow that’s naive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Guns don't kill people, people do!" No structural issues here to see, please proceed /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

More like, if you sell a gun and follow the law, you're not responsible if the person you sold the gun to murders someone...

They're an ad agency. They sell ad space. If "anti-abortion" people buy ads, that doesn't mean that Google is pushing anti-abortion. How anyone could think like that is frankly the epitome of stupidity.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Microsoft Chrome

Meta Chrome

Amazon Chrome

Apple Chrome

Sell to who though

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

ByteDance shell company Chrome.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

That…makes a horrible amount of sense.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I really want to downvote you just for the idea. Wow

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Can I kick them? I want to kick them.

load more comments
view more: next ›