6 ms·

If you look carefully at the Chromium project, it’s made up of teams that specialize in different components. The majority of the members of those teams are in

If you look carefully at the Chromium project, it’s made up of teams that specialize in different components. The majority of the members of those teams are in turn Google employees. Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams. I don’t see how a DOJ decision against Google would change any of that. Ban Google employees from participating in the project? And then who would replace them?

crop_rotation 2y ago
I am not sure why you are being downvoted. This just means existing OS monopolies of Apple and Microsoft are given entire control of their kingdoms with no web landscape to challenge them a teeny tiny bit.
wmf 2y ago
All the people who work on Chrome would go with it.
theptip 2y ago
But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic. Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-launch-of-supporters-of-chromium-based-browsers https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou... https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based-browsers https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...
  - rafram 2y ago
    > Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera. Doesn't read like a takeover attempt to me...
  - dlivingston 2y ago
    Off topic, but why is the Linux Foundation website asking me to allow cookies for "Targeted Advertising"?
- swat535 2y ago
  My question is, even if they do sell off Chrome, wouldn't Google just create another "Chrome" using the Chromium and use its monopolistic power to push it on everyone? What am I missing here? It doesn't sound like this would solve the issue..
  - dehugger 2y ago
    Presumably part of the court order is that they can't just do the same thing again without suffering the same (or worse) consequences.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Are you assuming the people crafting remedies haven't thought of this? You should tell them immediately!!! LOL. of course they've thought through that and will have a "you can't just rebuild it" clause in the remedy. This isn't hard unless you're trying to make it hard and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that except to side with Big Tech over consumers trying to muddy the waters and convince others it's all just too darned hard to do anything about so we should let our betters in Big Tech continue dictating our lives.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bo1024 2y ago
  Forcing Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to move to Manifest v3, i.e. deleting the ability from the browser to have good adblockers, is incredibly valuable to Google.
  - creato 2y ago
    I was just forced to switch from uBO to uBO lite because of this. I can't see any difference in behavior, and now the extension doesn't need unlimited permissions.
    - ffpip 2y ago
      > CNAME-uncloaking is up to each DNR implementation; no DNR implementation supports this capability at the time of writing. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...
crote 2y ago
Same way it worked in the past with monopolies like Ma Bell? Those teams can keep working on Chrome, they'll just have to fall under some new kind of separate Chrome Inc. structure instead of under Google Inc., and Google will have to sell most of its shares of Chrome Inc. to third parties. Splitting off Chrome really isn't the problem. Making the new Chrome Inc. profitable without accepting bribes from big tech, on the other hand...
- loeg 2y ago
  Yes, that's sort of the problem. An independent Chrome probably wouldn't be profitable. This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers. To be fair, Google could reassign them to something else. Firing everybody will be Google's decision that wasn't forced on them.
    - loeg 2y ago
      I don't really know if they would be allowed to divest the IP but retain the developers. Maybe!
      - asadotzler 2y ago
        Of course they could. They could just cancel Chrome, shut the whole browser down and reassign all the staff, and the DOJ would be fine with that. Cancelling it, or selling while keeping 100% of the employees are in no way counter to the proposed remedies.
        loeg 2y ago
        We don’t know what proposals the court will accept.
timewizard 2y ago
> Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams. What exactly are "best qualifications?" More simply are you assuming that myself and Google share a definition of "best qualified?" I genuinely don't believe that we do. > And then who would replace them? People working for a different company. Is your case that without Google no one would make web browsers?
realitysballs 2y ago
Think about difference between Brave and Chrome. Both Chromium browsers but Brave is much less intrusive and exploitative of user data. More Brave and less Chrome would allow average user greater privacy and less reliance on large corporations perhaps
- sumeno 2y ago
  Not sure this is the company we want to put our trust in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
- magicalist 2y ago
  Brave makes a profit because they don't pay for developing the browser.
  - cactusplant7374 2y ago
    I really doubt Brave is profitable. They have taken a lot of VC money.
- creato 2y ago
  They also do really shady things with affiliate links and their scheme to hijack ad revenue from websites.
irrational 2y ago
Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to? They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear. However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far worse ToS policies (which doesn’t make Firefox “right” or “just”) Because if that is upsetting then using Chrome should be outright enraging, yet people hardly mention it’s consistent anti user behavior as often as people jump on Mozilla and a Firefox for anything they do that is seen as unfavorable
    - nuker 2y ago
      Please don't lump Safari with the rest of them, drunk on ad-based revenue.
    - jpc0 2y ago
      I don't use Chrome or a Chromium based browser, I voted with my feet to the only browser who at least made a face value attempt to be better. Explain why when they changed their stance me holding them to a standard I hold all other browsers is now an issue.
  - eCa 2y ago
    I believe that has been changed to something more like: “You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”

crop_rotation 2y ago

I am not sure why you are being downvoted. This just means existing OS monopolies of Apple and Microsoft are given entire control of their kingdoms with no web landscape to challenge them a teeny tiny bit.

wmf 2y ago

All the people who work on Chrome would go with it.

theptip 2y ago

But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic. Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-launch-of-supporters-of-chromium-based-browsers https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou... https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based-browsers https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...
- rafram 2y ago
  > Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera. Doesn't read like a takeover attempt to me...
- dlivingston 2y ago
  Off topic, but why is the Linux Foundation website asking me to allow cookies for "Targeted Advertising"?
swat535 2y ago
My question is, even if they do sell off Chrome, wouldn't Google just create another "Chrome" using the Chromium and use its monopolistic power to push it on everyone? What am I missing here? It doesn't sound like this would solve the issue..
- dehugger 2y ago
  Presumably part of the court order is that they can't just do the same thing again without suffering the same (or worse) consequences.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Are you assuming the people crafting remedies haven't thought of this? You should tell them immediately!!! LOL. of course they've thought through that and will have a "you can't just rebuild it" clause in the remedy. This isn't hard unless you're trying to make it hard and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that except to side with Big Tech over consumers trying to muddy the waters and convince others it's all just too darned hard to do anything about so we should let our betters in Big Tech continue dictating our lives.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bo1024 2y ago
Forcing Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to move to Manifest v3, i.e. deleting the ability from the browser to have good adblockers, is incredibly valuable to Google.
- creato 2y ago
  I was just forced to switch from uBO to uBO lite because of this. I can't see any difference in behavior, and now the extension doesn't need unlimited permissions.
  - ffpip 2y ago
    > CNAME-uncloaking is up to each DNR implementation; no DNR implementation supports this capability at the time of writing. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#if-i-install-ubol-will-i-see-a-difference-with-ubo https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

crote 2y ago

Same way it worked in the past with monopolies like Ma Bell? Those teams can keep working on Chrome, they'll just have to fall under some new kind of separate Chrome Inc. structure instead of under Google Inc., and Google will have to sell most of its shares of Chrome Inc. to third parties. Splitting off Chrome really isn't the problem. Making the new Chrome Inc. profitable without accepting bribes from big tech, on the other hand...

loeg 2y ago
Yes, that's sort of the problem. An independent Chrome probably wouldn't be profitable. This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers. To be fair, Google could reassign them to something else. Firing everybody will be Google's decision that wasn't forced on them.
  - loeg 2y ago
    I don't really know if they would be allowed to divest the IP but retain the developers. Maybe!
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      Of course they could. They could just cancel Chrome, shut the whole browser down and reassign all the staff, and the DOJ would be fine with that. Cancelling it, or selling while keeping 100% of the employees are in no way counter to the proposed remedies.
      - loeg 2y ago
        We don’t know what proposals the court will accept.

timewizard 2y ago

> Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams. What exactly are "best qualifications?" More simply are you assuming that myself and Google share a definition of "best qualified?" I genuinely don't believe that we do. > And then who would replace them? People working for a different company. Is your case that without Google no one would make web browsers?

realitysballs 2y ago

Think about difference between Brave and Chrome. Both Chromium browsers but Brave is much less intrusive and exploitative of user data. More Brave and less Chrome would allow average user greater privacy and less reliance on large corporations perhaps

sumeno 2y ago
Not sure this is the company we want to put our trust in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
magicalist 2y ago
Brave makes a profit because they don't pay for developing the browser.
- cactusplant7374 2y ago
  I really doubt Brave is profitable. They have taken a lot of VC money.
creato 2y ago
They also do really shady things with affiliate links and their scheme to hijack ad revenue from websites.

irrational 2y ago

Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.

ARandomerDude 2y ago
Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”
- no_wizard 2y ago
  How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to? They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear. However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far worse ToS policies (which doesn’t make Firefox “right” or “just”) Because if that is upsetting then using Chrome should be outright enraging, yet people hardly mention it’s consistent anti user behavior as often as people jump on Mozilla and a Firefox for anything they do that is seen as unfavorable
  - nuker 2y ago
    Please don't lump Safari with the rest of them, drunk on ad-based revenue.
  - jpc0 2y ago
    I don't use Chrome or a Chromium based browser, I voted with my feet to the only browser who at least made a face value attempt to be better. Explain why when they changed their stance me holding them to a standard I hold all other browsers is now an issue.
- eCa 2y ago
  I believe that has been changed to something more like: “You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”