• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the last antitrust win we’ll get for years, isn’t it?

    I know Trump doesn’t like Big Tech, but I doubt his admin will punish them meaningfully, but just rail about censorship.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Our govt is pay for play at this point, I struggle to see anything like this going through, especially so close to a new AG appointment.

    • babybus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This isn’t a win I think. They are yet to meet in the court with Google.

      The DOJ will file a revised version of its proposals in early March, before the government and Google return to the DC District Court in April for a two-week remedies trial.

      • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I keep saying this. In 2 months all this antitrust stuff goes out the window. If people actually bothered to show up on 11/5 Kahn and co could actually get some wins for the American people. Instead, we’re going to get more monopolies shoved down our throats.

  • Decker108@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Like someone commented in another fediverse community: this court case can really only keep going for two more months, after that it’s anyone’s guess what will happen to the court: Alphabet could bribe someone in the DOJ to make the case disappear or (and this is the funny one) law and order could breakdown completely, rendering the case, the court and all the rest of society moot.

  • daggermoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What company could actually afford to buy it other than Google, Meta, or Amazon? Unless they are forced to sell it at a loss, which is fine with me.

      • dinckel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        With all due respect for Valve, they don’t need this. They exist in their niche, and they’re exceptionally good at doing their work

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      By “sell,” they could also mean ending up having Chrome just split off from Google, as a new, independent entity that is its own company, without anybody needing to buy it in the first place.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The judge would immediately shut that down for creative avoidance. This is an order to sell, not break up. The DOJ specifically indicated behavioural remedies in this case, meaning Google must not remain in control of Chrome.

        • underwire212@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Don’t ya love it when people comment saying something that they think must be true as if it were actually true, without having the slightest idea?

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is an order to sell, not break up.

          Currently, it’s still recommended actions to the court. Nothing has actually been finalized in terms of what they’re going to actually end up trying to make Google do.

          Google must not remain in control of Chrome.

          While divestiture is likely, they could also spin-off, split-off, or carve-out, which carry completely different implications for Google, but are still an option if they are unable to convince the court to make Google do their original preferred choice.

          A split-off could prevent Google from retaining shares in the new company without sacrificing shares in Google itself, and a carve-out could still allow them to “sell” it, but via shares sold in an IPO instead of having to get any actual buyout from another corporation.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Selling user data, selling ad placement, subscriptions for paid services, enterprise-grade support contracts, and the like.

          They could also take an approach similar to Google, branching back out from being just a browser into a suite of related tools that Chrome can then convince users to switch to (similar to how Chrome gets users to not just use Google search, but also services like Gmail too.)

  • mosscap@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Trump will let this go through and behind the scenes force a deal where X buys Chrome

  • xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Who would buy this and how would they monetize it? In browser ads? A freemium paid model to remove the ads?

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They should force it to become a worker cooperative. It’s the only solution that doesn’t allow for corruption

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yep, nationalize everything that’s essential or at least offer a nationalized alternative and let the private sector try to compete.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I literally salivate at the thought of it happening to the telecom industries.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        For a lot of things yes.

        However I do not want to use a browser developed by the US gov tyvm

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          My comment is more in line with the corruption aspect. As much as I think they deserve it, giving it to the employees would be more akin to them winning the lottery. In the space of a year, they will have gone public, shareholders would have stormed in and we would be at square one.

          Nationalisation at least has a chance of getting rid of the money corruption aspect. Sadly, the three letter agencies are probably deep in every browser already so I don’t think any solution takes care of that.

          I understand your point though. Personally, I will never use chrome no matter what happens, ha.

  • 200ok@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker, says the DOJ is pushing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”

    I’m honestly curious how this would “harm Americans”.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      …a radical interventionist agenda…

      That language seems very “Trump-esque”, and I doubt it is a coincidence.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The same ruling would ban Google from paying other browsers to make Google the default search engine.
      This would kill Firefox and make Chromium the only browser engine that’s left.

    • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      How does chrome make money? It uses ads from Google, chrome on it’s own is not a business.

      Say you buy chrome, you have to options

      1. Ads built into chrome itself (when you’re in the settings menu, homepage, reading a PDF, playing the dino game)

      2. Force your own default search engine, or get a company like Google or Bing to pay you for the privilege of being a default search engine.

      Neither of these options are better than the status quo

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Google pretending they have any other nationality other then “the global internet” is cute in a disgusting way.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I refuse to call any Billionaires Americans. A billionaire in America has far more in common with a billionaire in Ireland or France than with working class Americans. They don’t use our schools, drink our water, drive our roads, or rely on our safety nets. They don’t take out the trash, do their laundry, wait 6 months for a doctor’s appointment, or stress over defunding their retirement to pay for needed medication.

        Billionaire involvement in politics should be considered foreign interference. Of course AIPAC is foreign interference too, but apparently that’s not a problem either.

      • Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Everyone really does need to have that at the forefront of their mind. When the C-suit, wall street, and politicians talk about “Americans” they aren’t talking about us schlubs.

  • disconnectikacio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They should force google to kick sundar, the harmful thing, what made all google software, and services shit since it is the ceo…

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you think Sundar is bad, just wait to see who Wall Street picks to replace him.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Strip google for parts And I mean that literally, asset strip the removed, no more youtube, gmail, sell the hardware, release all IP to public, absolutely dismantle google entirely. Do the same with all of FAANG. Then the 25 next biggest platform monopolists. They are Web2 parasites and they need to die.

  • 200ok@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they’re allowed to choose who they sell it to this won’t change anything

  • raynethackery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, see all this stuff happening between now and inauguration day. See, we did something. Too little, too late. If there are ever free and fair elections in this country, and the Democrats return to power, they better get their fucking shit together. The dismantling of the Federal government will be almost impossible to reverse.