4 ms·
But letting the chips fall where they may is what led to the current situation, with a browser market heavily distorted and made anti-competitive by two tech gi
by Joeri 4y ago
But letting the chips fall where they may is what led to the current situation, with a browser market heavily distorted and made anti-competitive by two tech giants. What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise.
If the regulator does not step in they are choosing the status quo which by itself also is a deliberate choice. Inaction is always also a form of action.
- lucasyvas 4y agoIt's the regulators job. If they don't do their job, the users (not another anti-competitive company) will take matters into their own hands. There are alternative protocols that could be developed - the only reason they haven't taken off is because we are at stalemate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MBCook 4y ago> What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise. That’s not what I see. I see people constantly calling for the ability to run other browsers (really Chrome) on iOS. I almost never see people trying to get Google’s massive browser share reduced. If you do one without the other I expect disaster. That was the point of my comment. I want the “open web” people (in general, not just this org) to call for BOTH. But I don’t see that.
- agust 4y agoOpen Web Advocacy does address anti-competitive practices from Google. See their submission to the Japanese regulator: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)%20-%20Competition%20in%20the%20Mobile%20App%20Ecosystem%20-%20v1.1.pdf https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)... Section 3.1.7 - No Chrome Preferencing and section 3.1.8 - Website Transparency Obligations.