41
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
41 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37664 readers
426 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I disagreed with the Microsoft charges back then, and I disagree with the case against Google now. I hate both of them and I think they use monopolistic tactics, but making their own search engine or browser the default in their OS isn't monopolistic, especially since you can easily change it.
The tactics that should be fought against are things like when Google used its size and money to offer free unlimited cloud photo storage. That put several cloud services out of business because they couldn't compete with "free unlimited" storage. Then, when all the competition was gone, Google started charging for their service which was no longer unlimited.
When someone tries to compete with Google, Google either uses their power to put them out of business or buys them. That is totally monopolistic and what the government should be defending against.
You're completely missing the point to a level that feels dishonest. You've already gotten a great reply around why you're wrong on Microsoft so I'll keep to Google.
Google started out providing the superior service and didn't do anything overtly shady. Then the shady shit started, cloud storage was one thing as mentioned, others include doing the Microsoft thing of not following web standards properly, in Googles case with the argument that their way is faster/better etc effectively forcing everyone to code towards their browser (chromium, not just chrome) since it has insane market domination.
Another, and maybe the most egregious because they haven't been slapped for the other stuff, is the privacy bullshit they're doing now around cookies which basically kills off the last remnants of competition around ads online.
Google as the default search is just the tip of the shitberg of monopolistic bullshit imo.
I agree. That's why I don't understand why they are going after the default search when it's the weakest argument of all of them. I just pointed out one instance where Google is blatantly monopolistic, but there are many more, and there are also many instances where they are breaking other laws. It just seems like the government is sticking to the default search issue because it's soft and they truly don't care. If they win, they can force Google to make it easier to set your search engine. Then they claim a victory, while Google just keeps on invading our privacy and amassing our data for their own profit.
The real case meat isn't default search though, it's the fact that they have 95%+ of the US online search market. That is stifling innovation and is part of the reason for their ad dominance as well. And they're abusing it as well by making changes which mean they funnel you into ad results, display the content you're after without entering the page in question thus "stealing" traffic and eyeballs and the whole amp bullshit.
Just like AT&T previously completely dominating telecom was a dampener on innovation which became super obvious once the monopoly was ended I think it will be the opening of Internet and search innovation flood gates if this monopoly is broken.
That's the important part. My point is that the government is like a lion going after toes rather than the jugular. They could easily go for something more significant, but they've chosen not to. I think it's because they care more about the show than the result. Not even Google could take on the federal government if it really wanted to break up the monopoly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen these shinanigans too many times