4 ms·
>Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties.
by graeme 2y ago
>Much better privacy protection and ad blocking.
The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties.
There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them.
Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads.
FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
======
Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company
- N19PEDL2 2y ago> Microsoft? It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or Amazon.
- mupuff1234 2y agoI'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk. There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed to buy chrome.
- MikeHolman 2y agoI think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking data and boost additional ad revenue. Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers though... it's just trading one personal data hungry megacorp for another.
- shiroiushi 2y agoI might make some sense. However, not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram; it's not quite like Google where just about everyone uses some of their services, if not many. I suppose it would help Meta greatly expand their ad business, to places far beyond FB/IG.