Google says government proposals would “harm America’s consumers.”…
  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    15·
    4 days ago

    Do Elon now. He owns way too much shit and always tries for a monopoly. Start by nationalizing star link.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      23·
      3 days ago

      Why nationalize it? Surely treating Starlink like a utility and putting it under an independent org would be better, no? Keep politics out of it and let ISPs pay for access like how MVNOs like Mint Mobile work, except prevent the entity that owns it from providing service directly.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    101·
    4 days ago

    selling android or breaking it up would be terrible since you just go back to each manufacturer making their own flavor with no updates or compatability.

    • amelore@slrpnk.netEnglish
      7·
      3 days ago

      It’d be good for Android to be mostly its base, the Android Open Source Project. Over the years Google put more and more things in the proprietary part of Android (Google Play Services) instead of AOSP.

      Depends on who takes over whether that gets better of course. If they also put too much in Play Services, or ask the manufacturers for a high fee, yes it’s possible we go back to more oem flavours.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      10·
      3 days ago

      I used to believe this, before google turned evil. Right now I’d take 5 shitty flavours than the pure shit google is doing. They have turned into a vile corporation that needs to be cut down

    • Shayeta@feddit.orgEnglish
      11·
      4 days ago

      Disagree, you might be right in the short term, but long term competition like that only benefits the customer.

  • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
    12·
    5 days ago

    Google says government proposals would “harm America’s consumers.”

    Says the company that couldn’t stand by the core value “don’t be evil”.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      4 days ago

      Musk will be champing at the bit to own a controlling share of both of these. It disgusts me to agree with them but they’re right. This is the single worst possible time to try and push this through.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        1·
        4 days ago

        This is the single worst possible time to try and push this through.

        Which is why it’s happening now, I agree.

        But we, the non-billionaires are still better off after any monopoly split. It’s hard to express how incredibly bad powerful monopolies are. The fact that another billionaire will be the buyer sucks, but it’s no reason to back away from forcing the legally required split.

      • mke@programming.dev
        5·
        2 days ago

        The monkey giggles. Mozilla completely pivots to adtech & AI.

        P.S. for the record, I continue using a Firefox fork and don’t plan on stopping. Criticism where it’s due, but I still think they’re the best option.

      • Harold@feddit.nlEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        You know what, good. Maybe it’ll cause the people who keep using Chrome because they don’t give two shits about their privacy to get off their asses and use something else.

        Just like whole tribes are refusing to move from WhatsApp to Signal, because they say they care about privacy, but actually they don’t.

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      9·
      4 days ago

      Reading the article helps to answer this question:

      The DOJ is asking the court to force Google to promptly and fully divest itself of Chrome, along with any data or other assets required for its continued operation.

      It also links the filing, see specifically “III. Plaintiffs’ Revised Proposed Final Judgment”

  • fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    11·
    5 days ago

    The DOJ is asking the court to force Google to promptly and fully divest itself of Chrome, along with any data or other assets required for its continued operation. It is essentially aiming to take the Chrome user base—consisting of some 3.4 billion people—away from Google and hand it to a competitor

    Fuck yes, shatter that shit.

      • radix@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        5 days ago

        Seriously. The only people willing to pay what it’s “worth” will end up doing the same thing (or worse).

        What we need are some actual privacy laws with teeth, so that the data isn’t worth as much to begin with.

      • fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        3·
        5 days ago

        Elon’s a dunce, so he’ll probably enshittify it so badly that people will leave. So google is weakened and chrome dies (at least, i hope in a good outcome)

        • NightOwl@lemmy.oneEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          That regular people would stop using chrome if it turned into xhrome is highly unlikely. These are people who browse without adblocker, use facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and buy Amazon echos. It’d just lead to Doge influencing the direction of xhromium based browsers.

  • Yozul@beehaw.org
    1·
    4 days ago

    I mean, I’d love to see Google broken up, but this isn’t news. DoJ has been asking specifically for Chrome to be sold for over a year now, and the lawsuit was started during the first Trump administration. Until the judge actually reaches a decision this is just recycled old news.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      5 days ago

      They’ll bend eventually. Money does that.

      Remember when DeSantis went to war with Disney? And Disney destroyed him and any chance he had to being a presidential candidate and we all cheered? Then Disney went around to make allegiance with all the non-DeSantis Republicans?

      It’s all money for stockholders at the end of the day. Not people, not who sits at the throne.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          4 days ago

          Corporations are the shareholders they care about, people like you and mean never own a majority of a company’s stocks

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              4 days ago

              What I’m saying is that when you say “people are the shareholders”, they’re not the shareholders that matter. BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, these are the shareholders that major publically traded companies care about. They might technically need to care about retail investors as well, in the end they’re not the ones who have the power to sway the votes one way or another.

  • quickenparalysespunk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    4 days ago

    i really distrust Google and I’m glad about the verdict. I do agree that chrome and android should be cut off models.

    edit: cut off from advertising business models

    on the other hand, like with Firefox, I’m worried about the instability and changes that are coming, mainly in the effect on fork projects Like Graphene, Calyx, Lineage, any privacy-focused Chrome forks, and of course Chromium.

    DOJ probably isn’t able to guarantee chrome & potentially android are taken over by totally ethical, stable companies/NPOs who will keep the projects open source, or allow an open source offshoot project to which the new organization would still contribute coding people-hours.

    I’m sure there will be some sort of guarantees for stock chrome and android users, like paid services/subscriptions will be continued or refunded.

    but what about users of community projects based on chrome and Android?

    many other Lemmy users have commented how community projects don’t really have the resources to keep browser engines up to date, let alone innovate. without Google (which i think is a good thing), Microsoft Edge team could become the de facto direction-setter of Chronium (which i think is really really really bad).

    TL;DR the foss mobile OS community, and especially the foss browser community (considering Firefox funding shortfall and AI/ad revenue pursuits) are possibly f*ed in the a for the near term.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      0·
      4 days ago

      Not sure why Google needs to sell chrome but Microsoft doesn’t need to sell edge. Noone controlling the device should also own the internet browser imo.