this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
251 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

34388 readers
218 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge has ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly in the US. “The market reality is that Google is the only real choice” as the default search engine, Judge Amit Mehta said in his decision, and he determined it had gotten that way unfairly. It’s a ruling that could portend big changes for the company, but we yet don’t know how big, and we might not for years.

Mehta declared on Monday that Google was liable for violating antitrust laws, vindicating the Department of Justice and a coalition of states that sued the tech giant in 2020. The next step — deciding on remedies for its illegal conduct — begins next month. Both parties must submit a proposed schedule for remedy proceedings by September 4th and then appear at a status conference on September 6th.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What happens now is that Google appeals and then the case will bounce around different courts for years to come, and maybe one day the supreme court will hear it assuming that US lasts that long as a country.

[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Yip. I took the government what, 17 years..? from suing to breaking up AT+T, and they were the largest company in America that entire time.

At+t tried to slap em with some exorbitant long distance charges and Uncle Sam got tired of the fuck around.

To today; Google's been showing the wrong people the wrong kind of ads. Showing representatives ads for laundromats and daycares that offer drivinga ed after looking up how to launder money and traffic children. NO google, I did NOT mean THAT

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I have used Google, DDG, Bing and Ecosia (which is basically Bing) at this point and ingl, none of them really stands out for its results. If anything, I think DDG and Bing beat Google.

Google might be the first company to create a monopoly out money and apathy. The apathy of users who don't care about their search engine enough to even change the default.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honeslty all search engines have gone to shit since the internet got polluted with AI-generated nonsense. Its a very hard problem to solve.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think we should be precise. The badness began before generative AI. Generative AI makes things worse because now you are less sure when you're looking at total junk, but the junk ratio itself doesn't depend on that.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well, its worse because its a firehose that can spit out nonsense at a rate nearly infinitely greater than a finite set of content marketing employees

[–] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

You're not wrong. The mass proliferation of listacles with the same 5 advertised products stamped behind a novella of filler to appease SEO algorithms has been increasingly problematic for at least 10 years now. The issue has only been compounded with the flood of "AI" generated content and deceptive ads. I almost prefer when every website had sidebars full of blatant advertisements. Sure they were ever present, but they weren't trying to literally trick you into buying something.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

What you talking about as apathy, that's not what's happening. Google has 90% or more of the search market because it's the default, because it pays to be the default, even when it's worse than alternatives. The only people who are actually apathetic are the ones who know that alternative exist, are relatively easy to switch to, are superior, and still don't. That's not the majority of users.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

Have you tried Kagi?

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (21 children)

this could be bad for mozilla / firefox.

if Google can't continue to try to increase / sustain their market share, they may stop paying mozilla to be thw default.

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they do and Firefox dies, they're getting ANOTHER Antitrust trial (hopefully).

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On what grounds would that trial exist?

They're the only rendering engine? Oh because they stopped paying Mozilla? Due to a court order?

It's a complicated situation.

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Because with the Chromium engine becoming the only engine, they can decide which features they want to support and which they don't, thus, combined with their ad business, they will have no opposition to Manifest v3 and can even do Manifest v3.1 or Manifest v4 which leaves adblockers completely powerless against Google Ads.

And can essentially deprecate all browser addons forever.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right but you said "hopefully" and "can".

They haven't actually done that yet.

I do think the Manifest v2 situation is interesting, but keep in mind the Chromium/Blink engine is fully open source.

It's a trickier sell to say they have complete control when anyone is free to fork it.

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

Ain't nobody forking Chromium, and realistically speaking, everyone will just follow whatever standards Google pushes via the Blink engine. It's the truth, no matter the copium. Maybe Vivaldi and Brave will try to oppose any bad changes, but they will kneel eventually.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] simple@lemm.ee 40 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Google pays Firefox a lot of cash to be the default search engine on their browser.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So now we need to make sure we keep supporting Firefox. I have a feeling that most people who can choose, do in fact coose firefox, and the majority of chrome users do so because it's on their business or student computers.

[–] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How does one support Firefox in a post Google paying them world?

I know the Mozilla foundation takes donations but it doesn't seem like those go to Firefox development. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Some of it does. But currently a lot of it doesn't because they can rely on the google funding. You can also donate volunteering time to Mozilla projects you want to support like Firefox or Thunderbird

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A lot goes on the CEO's $7,000,000 salary.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah. The CEO class needs to be eliminated from the upper stratus of society. If you think monetary donations to Mozilla aren't worth it as a result, I get it, and I'm right there with you. I don't donate money. But also... In the browser space if money is what you want to donate, it might be the best route.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure, but non profits have made millions in the past, and they were supposed to pass the money on to someone else, such as the corrupt Susan G. Komen, but did not. So yeah, Mozilla could be supported by donations alone.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought the money was to protect their monopoly status.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's saying the quiet part loud

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago

It's important though because if that's the real reason Google pays them, they could come up with some other excuse to give them the money.

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Do you really think Google will give up on their pole position because of this verdict?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

Default search engine on their browser?

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Maybe like a one million dollar fine? That's a lot of money, you know.

[–] palarith@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Google search opens up to more corps so everyone can get in on the enshittification

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Does anyone have a (link to a) good summary of the ruling and rationale?

I find the idea that "Google is the only real choice" kind of odd. There are other perfectly functional and user-friendly search engines. It's not like other monopolies, say, Youtube, where there's no realistic alternative. (I'm not denying that search is a monopoly too.)

[–] Mikelius@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Practices like getting Reddit to only work with Google instead of Bing are probably a big part of it.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Google pays a lot to stay the default browser.

The other search engines mostly use overlapping indexes.

Said search engines are also not anywhere near competition to Google.

Quite frankly, I can only think of 4. DDG, Ecosia, Bing, and Kagi.

Most people don't know about Ecosia or Kagi. Most people hardly even know about DDG.

I wouldn't consider YouTube as much of a monopoly because despite it being mostly the only one, from what I understand they haven't paid out to stay the only one, and don't really leverage market dominance against others (they probably do but I just don't hear about it often.) The main reason alternatives don't exist is simply because of the mass amount of data the YT needs

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

YouTube has a network effect monopoly as well. Who would use a competing service?

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Kill Chrome/Chromium and Firefox by proxy. Revert back to pure html websites, live a free life.

load more comments
view more: next ›