this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
863 points (99.5% liked)

Privacy

32165 readers
143 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

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"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..."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 132 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I sincerely hope they get broken up.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 56 points 3 months ago

Thoughts and prayers. (I don’t even know if I’m being sarcastic anymore)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 6 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 105 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is based on older evidence but the exclusive deal Google just signed with reddit makes it pretty clear the monopoly is planned and ongoing.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The funny thing is that this probably screws Reddit more than anyone. Obviously fuck 'em but funny either way.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It depends on the conditions of the agreement and how much they are being paid. Google's worldwide market share is above 91% so reddit isn't actually losing out on much site traffic by going exclusive.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but if the argument is that Google is paying to be a monopoly then they're going to have to stop payment.

Google allegedly paid $60 million for access to Reddit for AI purposes. Reddit then disallowed access to all other providers, unless they can promise they won't use the data for AI purposes.

Technically Reddit is the one disallowing access, but if the argument is that Google is paying for special access I don't see why I wouldn't extend to AI.

Reddit now needs to either argue their data is some special intellectual property worth $60 million or is at a price point more accessible and it sure as shit won't be $60 million.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Reddit then disallowed access to all other providers, unless they can promise they won’t use the data for AI purposes.

That's what they said publicly, but even search providers like Mojeek that have no AI capabilities appear to require some sort of "commercial agreement" to allow reddit scraping moving forward. It seems to me that Google was attempting to further distance itself from the competition with the agreement and that reddit went along with it because, in some way, it makes financial sense for reddit too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 76 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The punishment will be less big than the profit, they won't stop, as usual.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Did you do a crime? Well as the authority round these parts, you know I get a cut.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 5 points 3 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.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 65 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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)
[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 64 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Shatter the company like glass.

They are insanely huge. They should be 10 different companies.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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)
[–] Eggyhead@kbin.run 57 points 3 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Mojeek@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 months ago

~~Search Engine Optimization~~ Google Optimization

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

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)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good, fuck Google. Break up that site.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Never going to happen. Remember when the same thing happened to Microsoft in the 90s?

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

Unfortunately yes... I also remember when windows 98 crashed in a demonstration.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I hope windows will be next

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mosscap@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

It already hobbled itself by letting the results quality slide for 15+ years…

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] sovietknuckles@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 7 points 3 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

True I suppose

I just don't like how Chrome is the "standard"

[–] falseprophet@fedia.io 8 points 3 months ago

I agree but that is a different problem

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 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

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

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

Really, this is just a win for Facebhook?

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We need a federated search engine. Whatever fedia.io runs on but for search.

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (11 children)

How do you build a federated search index?

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Also why? Searxng is a thing. I would argue search wouldn't need to be federated. Makes sense for social media, web is already connected.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Isn't searxng just a proxy for google and bing? Not sure how that "increases diversity" or "adds competition" or "improves search results"...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LucidBoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago

fr, searxng is the b0ss

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›