I sincerely hope they get broken up.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
824 points (99.4% liked)
Privacy
34217 readers
1310 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Thoughts and prayers. (I don’t even know if I’m being sarcastic anymore)
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.
Happy cake day. Yes, I‘m afraid that could happen. We‘ll see.
The punishment will be less big than the profit, they won't stop, as usual.
Did you do a crime? Well as the authority round these parts, you know I get a cut.
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.
Shatter the company like glass.
They are insanely huge. They should be 10 different companies.
At least ten, and maintain no logs on their users. All previous logs must be purged and rendered irrecoverable.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Websites and articles that have nothing to do with search or Google have to be designed specifically for Google’s search algorithm. I think that’s pretty crazy.
~~Search Engine Optimization~~ Google Optimization
Not to mention googles push for an identification standard that would effectively ban any non chromium browser from all major websites.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Good, fuck Google. Break up that site.
Never going to happen. Remember when the same thing happened to Microsoft in the 90s?
Unfortunately yes... I also remember when windows 98 crashed in a demonstration.
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.
But... Aren't all of those things still very much dominant?
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The judge said it was a monopoly but there does not seem to be any consequences at this time if ever.
Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape.
The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from paying to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other devices. Or, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.
Today was not about determining consequences / repercussions. It was only about deciding yes or no on the monopoly issue. The next step in the legal process is determining repercussions for Alphabet, and it seems like there are some pretty dramatic options on the table.
It already hobbled itself by letting the results quality slide for 15+ years…
Google search is a monopoly? It is losing market share. They really should go after Chrome and its clones
Just because it's losing market share doesn't mean it's not a monopoly, let alone an illegal one.
True I suppose
I just don't like how Chrome is the "standard"
I agree but that is a different problem
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.
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
After reviewing [evidence from] Google, Microsoft and Apple... Mehta [gave a verdict]
Really, this is just a win for Facebhook?
view more: next ›