“WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation in a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies…”

  • haui
    link
    fedilink
    13311 months ago

    I sincerely hope they get broken up.

    • atro_city
      link
      fedilink
      3611 months ago

      Betchu they’ll just send a check of 1 B to the FTC and say “that should pay the fine + interest” then go on with their day. Happened in a similar fashion before.

      • haui
        link
        fedilink
        811 months ago

        Happy cake day. Yes, I‘m afraid that could happen. We‘ll see.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      If the fine is not large enough to impact their business then breaking the law will be a normal business decision and fines a simple business expense. It’s already like that.

  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1311 months ago

    Google search is a monopoly? It is losing market share. They really should go after Chrome and its clones

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2911 months ago

      Just because it’s losing market share doesn’t mean it’s not a monopoly, let alone an illegal one.

      • Possibly linux
        link
        fedilink
        English
        811 months ago

        True I suppose

        I just don’t like how Chrome is the “standard”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Then you should also not like how Google has a history of making their sites, which are market leaders in many cases including search, perform worse on browsers other than Chrome. That is considered anti-competitive behavior.

  • Melody Fwygon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6611 months ago

    Even if the punishment is largely symbolic and Google only pays a tiny (compared to it’s massive size) fine; I’d still call that a significant win.

    • Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.
    • Google can be FORBIDDEN from giving their OWN ENGINE an advantage in search results or advertising
    • Google can be FORCED to ALLOW THIRD PARTIES access to the SAME APIs used in Chrome and Chromium.
    • Google can be FORBIDDEN from BLOCKING THIRD PARTY FRONTENDS from using Google Search, Youtube and more.
    • Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 months ago

      Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.

      Don’t they, err, already do this?

      I mean a search engine is literally just a website and absolutely nothing prevents you from just going to duckduckgo.com or bing.com or wherever. Don’t think Chrome prevents you from accessing other search engines in general, and last time I used it (admittedly a while back) it had a setting to change the search engine used by default if you just typed something into the address bar.

      • Melody Fwygon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        Don’t they, err, already do this?

        No, They don’t. They have stolen that initial choice from you by paying companies to be the “default” choice. They do this to capture those who are lazy or indolent about their choices, or to entrap those who are too un-savvy to change the preference.

        • Schadrach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          You do know there’s a big difference between a “default” option and a “mandatory” setting, right? Specifically that you do, in fact, have a choice to change a default?

          Not forcing the user to proactively make a choice is not the same thing as denying the user the ability to choose.

  • SomeAmateur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    711 months ago

    It might not be much but it’s still legal precedent that will hopefully help it reach critical mass. Like getting Al Capone on tax evasion

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I may be misunderstanding but why are people saying take down chromium? Please correct me if I’m wrong but chromium is open source and only invested in largely by Google. Chrome is chromium with proprietary code implemented and in no way (as far as I can tell) do they own the chromium project. I quite like chromium just the de-googled version. I think people may be mistaking Chrome and Chromium for being the same or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe someone can explain if I’m missing something

    Also I’d love to see the downfall of Google but nothing will change the power they have. The names too recognizable it doesn’t matter if given a choice , Grandma or Grandpa or whoever that doesn’t care about this sort of thing is picking Google because out of the common options they’ll probably only recognize Bing or Google maybe some Yahoo too lol

    Edit: I don’t understand why I’m being downvoted , I was asking a question and explaining what I understood about the project but that’s the internet I suppose haha

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      I think the main problem is that Chromium still contributes towards the browser engine monoculture, as it is bug-for-bug compatible with Chrome. Therefore if you switch to Chromium, it’s still enough for the web sites to test for Chrome compatibility, which they will, because it has the largest market share. Users of competing browsers suffer, further driving the lure of Chrome (or Chromium).

      On the other hand, if people switched to some other engine, one that does not share the same core engine or even the same history, this will no longer hold: web sites would need to be developed against the spec, or at least against all the browsers they might realistically expect their customers to use.

    • tired_n_bored
      link
      fedilink
      811 months ago

      Chromium is open source but not free (as in freedom). In fact, it is developed by Google and only Google has the power to accept or refuse a PR.

      As an example: Manifest V2 is going to be discontinued in favor of V3 on Chromium (and consequently Chrome) despite the outrage of the users and developers.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        511 months ago

        I thought it was not a licensing issue but rather that it if someone wanted to maintain the engine with MV2, it would get increasingly hard to do independently because of the sheer complexity.

        • tired_n_bored
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Yup. Nobody denies you from forking Chromium and maintaining an updated version with MV2, but good luck doing that

      • KubeRoot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        I don’t think anything you said makes it not free, as long as you can fork it. The same can be said about most FOSS, since somebody, usually the creator, is in control of the repository.

        That’s the point of FOSS - your repository isn’t becoming a democracy by virtue of using a permissive license, but it means somebody could outcompete you with a fork and effectively take over as the dominant project.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2711 months ago

    Google gained their initial position fair and square. They had the better search engine, and despite the likes of Bing being actually pretty good they were never able to compete.

    All Google had to do was to follow its initial mantra of “don’t be evil”. That’s literally all it needed to do. Sadly, they were evil, and these are the seeds of that evil. I maintain today that Chrome, YouTube, Maps, and Search would still be dominant if Google were to welcome third-parties to compete and take space on their devices.

    This, IMO, is a case that is damaging to their CEO above anything else. It shows that over the last few years many of the steps taken that have alienated fans and employees have actually damaged the company too. The exec actions have damaged them, and as such the execs should pay the price or course-correct.

    • KubeRoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      But… Aren’t all of those things still very much dominant?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Many people use the example of Steam to say “well, they’re doing things right”, because they offer a better service to everyone else.

          My point is that Google could have welcomed competition and still stayed at the top. Instead, they created walls that welcomed this ruling, and damaged themselves and customers in the process.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        711 months ago

        They’re saying that google services are dominant and anticompetitive, but not dominant BECAUSE they’re anticompetitive.

        Even if they were playing fair with competitors, they would still be #1 because they were that good. But because they weren’t okay with giving competitors a fair chance, they resorted to anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers, and now this ruling is going to hurt google in return. They could have played nice and everything would have been better for everyone, but they didn’t so here we are

        • KubeRoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          That makes sense, thanks for explaining! I saw “makes space” as what’s happening right now, since Android does let you install alternatives for all those, including third party app stores, but it does go farther than that.

      • Sir Arthur V Quackington
        link
        fedilink
        1511 months ago

        Google is Alphabet.

        This distinction is meaningless. It is like arguing that Facebook isn’t a company anymore and Meta is a totally new institution.

        It’s Facebook. It’s Google.

        Its FAANG companies not MAANA companies.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1711 months ago

      At least ten, and maintain no logs on their users. All previous logs must be purged and rendered irrecoverable.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    711 months ago

    After reviewing [evidence from] Google, Microsoft and Apple… Mehta [gave a verdict]

    Really, this is just a win for Facebhook?

  • Barx [none/use name]
    link
    fedilink
    1911 months ago

    Wonder what will happen to Firefox if this ruling means Google can’t pay them to default to their search engine. That’s a large chunk of their funding.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      They previously had a big deal with Yahoo! For a few years didn’t they? They’ll just sign with whoever wants to give them money.

    • sovietknuckles [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Wonder what will happen to Firefox if this ruling means Google can’t pay them to default to their search engine.

      Yahoo was Firefox’s default search engine between 2014 and 2017. It would have lasted longer, but Verizon’s acquisition of Yahoo prompted Mozilla to terminate it. They can sign a deal with another search engine if the deal with Google falls through. In China, Baidu is the default search engine, and in Russia, Yandex is.

      Certainly Google will be more careful after this ruling, but nothing will actually go into effect at least for several years, if it ever does, because Google is appealing.

      That’s a large chunk of their funding.

      That’s true. When Mozilla resumed their search deal with Google in 2017, Google provided 91% of their revenue. But the percent of Mozilla’s revenue derived from Google has decreased every year since then, most recently at 81% as of 2022.