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.

  • WormFood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You know, I always assumed they were conservative biased because for me personally they always pushed the most disgusting far right garbage in reccomended and adverts for over a decade, but I looked it up and I guess Google does have an anti-conservative bias in their news listings.

        TIL.

    • einlander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Look at all their lips. See how they look like they are ready to kiss or suck something? Now look at Pichai. Just smiling instead of getting ready to receive a load. He bent the knee, but not far enough.

  • fuzzywombat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • jackyard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

        • Madis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

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

      • rothaine@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

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

      • gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • RightEdofer@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • Xanza@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Justice Department is 100% lobbing this over to JD Vance’s buddy Peter Thiel who’s going to enshittify it even further and turn it with its massive install base into a tool for techno-fascism.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Please, do it! That’s going to eviscerate Chrome’s userbase and push these Chromium browsers to fork so fast it’ll make his head spin.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re putting way too much faith in the typical consumer. Enshittifying Chrome even more would piss its users off, but inertia and its market dominance would keep most of them continuing to use it while complaining about how bad it is.

        Remember: It took 8 years for Chrome to drag Internet Explorer to the point where less than 10% of people actually used it. And that’s with Firefox already being a competitor to it for years.

    • biofaust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I must say that, as a European using a Firefox fork for my daily browsing while waiting for Ladybird, I don’t see that outcome as completely negative: Google, somehow, in America has kept a completely unjustified good vibes feeling surrounding itself, while Thiel is much more evil in the public eye.

      If Chrome is associated with him in anyway it can become a more lucid image of itself.

      • green@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Acceleration-ism does not work.

        If the USA has not taught you this, after this reckless takeover, nothing will save you.

        The more likely outcome is for Chrome to become a North Korea RedStar equivalent, where you cannot freely access the internet without Chrome. And if you visit a resource with wrongspeak, the resource will have all its finances taken away (see the legislation surrounding section 230); with you being sent to El Salvador.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I really don’t think this is true. It might push some politically engaged users to Firefox, but unlike Musk, most people don’t know who Thiel is, and as long as he keeps it that way, nobody will care.

        • biofaust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s when we come onto the scene.

          I am continuously “translating” news and opinions from here on LinkedIn. Already got banned from a professional Slack that contains most people in my industry for saying in a private conversation that I like watermelon.

          Not gonna stop. People are not politically inclined because we kept our knowledge to ourselves for too long.

          • tomenzgg@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            For a second, I read your fruit predilection literally and was like, “Is…watermelon controversial, now? Are they [the people who banned you] cartoonishly racist?”

            I follow you, now; sucks but expected…

              • tomenzgg@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yeah; of course. Ze’s referencing supporting Palestine (as the watermelon became more widely recognized as a symbol for them due to recent events).

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • rippersnapper@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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).

  • Geodad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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?