A judge ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation.

“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…”

  • xttweaponttx@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 months ago

    So stoked to see this. A bit disheartening to read this kinda shit, though=

    “This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. “No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

    Only to be followed a few paragraphs down by

    …a drawn-out appeals process will delay any immediate effects for both consumers and advertisers. The appeals process could take as long as five years…

    Sigh.

  • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 months ago

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

    Really, this is just a win for Facebhook?

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

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

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 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.

        • atro_city@fedia.io
          0·
          2 months ago

          Had a look: it’s 20 years and maintained by one single dude. Do you think one dude could compete with google? He needs help, and a lot of it.

          • atro_city@fedia.io
            0·
            2 months ago

            No, I mean the tech behind it, not the concept. The bittorrent application is able to find a file to download from a bunch of other people. Not only the file itself, but parts of it. It’s a distributed search.

            • doodledup@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              This works because it’s the same file just distributed. But in the case of search, every node would need to have the entire index of the web. If not, how would the client decide who’s index is better and which page rank fits better with the search? I really don’t see how this would work.

            • montar@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 months ago

              torrents have trackers, special servers that keep track of who’s got which parts of a file.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        0·
        2 months ago

        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
          0·
          2 months ago

          Isn’t searxng just a proxy for google and bing? Not sure how that “increases diversity” or “adds competition” or “improves search results”…

          • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
            0·
            2 months ago

            It can proxy anything you want to. There are a lot of searxng instances out there who have different setups. You could proxy only google or all the search engines that exist. Up to you. Ideally, I would make it so searxng can operate independently and have their own search engine algorithm but so far, this is the most open source and self hostable option available.

  • BeyondRuby@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 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

    • flux@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 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 and bored@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 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.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        0·
        2 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.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        0·
        2 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.

  • ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.netEnglish
      0·
      2 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.

  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
    0·
    2 months ago

    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
      0·
      2 months ago

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

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        0·
        2 months ago

        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
          0·
          2 months ago

          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
            0·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • MimicJar@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              That’s what I find so interesting about this result.

              For example Apple is paid ~$20 billion, or arguably charges that amount, to be the default search engine. That’s REAL money when compared to the Reddit deal.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

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

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 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.