So as I understand it, Google’s using it’s monopoly market position to force web “standards” unilaterally (without an independent/conglomerate web specification standards where Google is only one of many voices) that will disadvantage its competitors and force people to leave its competitors.

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m a fledgling tech guy, but this sounds like abuse of a monopoly. Google which serves 75% of the world’s ads and has 75% of the browser market share seems to want to use its market power to annihilate people’s privacy and control over their web experience.

So we can file a complaint with FTC led by Lina Khan who has been the biggest warrior against abuse by big tech in the US.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation

We can also file a complaint with the DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center

And there have to be EU, UK, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese organizations that we can file antitrust complaints to.

-8 points

The FTC couldn’t stop the Microsoft Activision acquisition, the largest tech acquisition in history, even though it was blatantly anticompetitive, and even though the FTC chair and the judge were both Biden appointees (although the judge was both incompetent and potentially biased towards Microsoft, but still)

My point being, what are the chances they’ll be able to stop something like this? Antitrust enforcement is dead in this country. The megacorps won.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

How was the Microsoft Activision thing “blatantly anticompetitive”? Neither Microsoft nor Activision are even remotely close to holding any monopoly, neither combined nor on their own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Maybe they should have gone after mergers/buyouts that matter more, rather than trying to stop sony’s feelings from getting hurt?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I am so disappointed. With that attitude, we can’t accomplish anything. With that attitude, our ancestors would have accomplished nothing

Yeah, Lina Khan lost that fight. But he’s not the only judge out there. And the United States isn’t the only country Google and Chrome are responsible to.

Didn’t the UK block the acquisition?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Their entire argument was about cloud gaming’s future and no one gives a shit about cloud gaming.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You can’t have antitrust and capitalism, they are fundamentally opposites. And only one has actual enforceable power.

permalink
report
reply
48 points

hah, this person thinks antitrust legislation is actually enforced

permalink
report
reply
16 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yes, the two options: rely on the committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie to stop the capitalist exploitation, or roll over and die.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

antitrust legislation is actually enforced

One could look at DoJ v Microsoft and how little was done despite it being SO bad that the DoJ actually sued the first technical company since AT&T for antitrust.

But that’s more a factor of inspections and investigations, and in a small-government setup there’s just no people for that. Sorry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

the EU actually does quite often, not that Americans would notice much of it. EU courts are the reason why Microsoft need to offer multiple browsers on install and why the N category of windows existed

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

They also where the first to approve the Microsoft/Activision merge tho so it’s better than in America but often very hit or miss too! :/

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Microsoft/Activision merger doesn’t pose any threat. Sony is the market leader in console gaming and Steam is the leading platform in PC gaming. Activision is also on its last breath and if it wasn’t for Microsoft, someone else would buy it a couple of years later. There are literally no reasons to block this merger.

The only reason US is against is because sweet Sony money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not exactly the same situation, Sony is the market leader here and the FTC was only able to show that the merger may harm Sony, not customers. The EU got many remedies for the Activision and Microsoft merger that doesn’t exist today like Activision games on more platforms which will be beneficial to consumers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

I never left Firefox, and I will never understand, why people were so quick to adopt Chrome which was Google controlled from the start. Google was already an obvious problem at the time (2008).

Google never had an interest in building the best browser for users. They are not a browser company, they are an advertiser. What they wanted is the best browser for Google, meaning the best browser for delivering advertising. They only made the best browser to attract users with no political foresight. That is becoming more and more obvious. Google has been trying to kill Firefox for a while, by making parts of their services not work quite as intended. While if you changed your user agent, it would work fine!

Another place here today, we can read how Google is trying to kill Jpeg XL or JXL, which is a superior graphics format to JPG PNG and GIF wrapped into 1. https://lemmy.world/post/2059816

Firefox really helped protect the Internet and Internet users from the shenanigans of Microsoft. It should come as no surprise, that Google wants to control the Internet, just as much as Microsoft did, from a pure business perspective, that’s an obvious move, and our best defense is still Mozilla and Firefox and lawmakers that aren’t corrupt. So don’t elect trump to get another Ajit Pai who has no bigger wish than to kill net neutrality.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

This Manifest V3 business with Chrome is going to be the trigger for me to jump ship.

If we spin up the way back machine, Chrome became popular as a competitor to Internet Explorer. Even though IE had the vast majority of market share it was a truly awful product. It was slow, unreliable, and insecure. Chrome resolved those issues and it was the reason I went with it at the time. Basically I was just looking to dump IE.

At the time Firefox was clunky, unpopular, and did not have good compatibility across all sites. Now that Chrome is less desirable we’re left with Firefox as the best alternative. It’s come a long way since IE and Chrome went head to head. It’s a much better product now with a bigger user base.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Firefox has never been slow and clunky. If anything, that was Chrome because it runs so much fucking bloat to scrape your data.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I disagree. I remember Firefox since the days it was called Phoenix (I even remember its grandad - Netscape Navigator) and it ALWAYS was very slow and buggy. Until very recent times when they did a big rewrite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

At the time Firefox was clunky, unpopular, and did not have good compatibility across all sites

Firefox was an excellent, fast, highly compatible, alternative to Internet Explorer. It was already winning when Chrome came on the scene. However, Firefox actually got more clunky and slower over time, so Chrome was a breath of fresh air in comparison. People like me who used Firefox back from version 0.6 jumped to Chrome because it was doing what Firefox used to do. Chrome was a genuinely better product for a long time, but then like Firefox, it too got slower and more clunky. Meanwhile, Firefox saw what they were up against and went back to their roots. Firefox has gotten a lot better in the last couple years.

Google also significantly pushed Chrome adoption by encouraging people to download it in Google search and Gmail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s probably true, but when I bailed on IE I tried both and Chrome was the better. I must have missed that early Firefox beats Chrome era. Even so I do remember having compatibility problems with Firefox on some sites and I simply couldn’t stand the settings interface. In any case the current awfulness of Chrome removes any question. Chrome is only going downhill and it will probably pick up the pace.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

why people were so quick to adopt Chrome which was Google controlled from the start.

Because for a long time Chrome was just much faster. It wasn’t until a couple of months ago that Firefox started becoming performant enough for me to use as a daily driver. Even then, there’s still issues with how slow it takes Mozilla to implement new web technologies like WebGPU, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Yes because a bit faster short term, is worth sacrificing you freedom long term?

I will never get people like you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Most people have no idea or don’t care at all about privacy on the internet. Google has a solid set of “free” services that work well and a good enough reputation to convince them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

because a bit faster short term

Waaaaaaay more than “a bit”. Like “imperceptible render time” vs 2s for firefox. That adds up a lot.

is worth sacrificing you freedom long term?

What freedom did I lose? I used chromium mostly.

Firefox has performance now, where it did’t in the past. So I don’t use chrome now.

See, I use the best tool for the job I can find, and that changes over time. For a while the was Chrome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Firefox used to be very slow, very buggy and full of memory leaks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

So a bit of speed short term, is enough to sacrifice your freedom long term?

Obviously I know it was faster, what I don’t get is that people had no principles, and was ready to give everything up to a company clearly trying to control the Internet.

And that was even so shortly after we had similar problems with Microsoft, that we have now with Google.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

i’m not sure you quite remember the leap in performance that chrome was… it was night and day, and literally ushered in the era of performance being an actual concern for browsers

as much as i hate google, you’ve gotta credit them with starting that

and at the start, many (myself included) believed that googles motivation was to make the web fast to compete with native apps (they wanted the web platform to be what everyone used on their phones), because google can serve web ads across all platforms on the web, but native they mostly only control android

that still might have been the entirety of their original intent too! but now they have that dominance, they’re being evil with it

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I could understand your argument if we’re talking about the choice today but don’t act like Google 15 years ago was the same as it is today. They are vastly different companies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s easy to forget now, but IE was such absolute dogshit for years that literally anything else was better

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Back in the day Firefox delivered the same look and feel with a better experience than IE did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You have to realise that to most people, Google is not seen as a bad company - quite the opposite in fact. They have all these “free” products that do everything you need them to, so they’ve built-up a huge amount of trust with the general population.

Google is obviously trying to take over the web, but the regular person doesn’t see this as they don’t follow any of this news, nor do they actually care. Google has good, fast, free products, that’s all people care about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

As someone deeply immersed in libre software and the Free Software Foundation, it pains me that my conversations are likely always going to be the first time people have actually seriously thought about their software freedom. It’s really difficult unwinding decades and billions of dollars of corpocratic propaganda without resorting to shock and scare tactics.

I’m still going to do it because there’s nothing else better to say. :D

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You have to realise that to most people, Google is not seen as a bad company - quite the opposite in fact.

You are right, maybe I tend to forget that is not obvious to everybody. But it’s not like I believe Google is inherently bad or evil, they just have an enormous amount of power that I think very few people realize. Google search alone or YouTube alone can make or break companies, can shift elections, can shift popular opinion in general. That’s to much power IMO.

Power corrupts as we know, and although Google is not worse than most, they aren’t better either, and they are using their power in subtle ways, to promote their own interests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I was a Firefox user until they started releasing major versions every few days which broke addons. Not sure how it is today but it was a hassle for a few weeks at least. I switched to chrome because it was the next best option back then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes that was stupid, I don’t deny Chrome could easily be seen as the better browser in some respects.

But it was still pretty obvious that we were on our way to the exact same problems we had with Internet Explorer, and Microsofts attempt to control the Internet, through extensions only available on IE, that were necessary to use several Microsoft technologies, when Microsoft had a monopoly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So would you say Firefox has settled down in the last years? I don’t like where chrome is going (not only privacy, the “dumbing down” sucks too) and tempted to switch back again. But it requires a bit of work

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
18 points
*

Even if alternatives die though, we could force google to sell off portions of itself to up and coming orgs/options like they did with AT&T. Or put in privacy protections that will allow alternatives to begin again and grow.

I don’t understand the ins and outs of it all but we can’t let fear of it taking too long or alternatives dying stop us from fighting monopolies and privacy protections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

So we should probably get started sooner than later. Especially while we have folks like Lina Khan in office.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 518K

    Comments