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…”

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Even if the punishment is largely symbolic and Google only pays a tiny (compared to it’s massive size) fine; I’d still call that a significant win.

    • Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.
    • Google can be FORBIDDEN from giving their OWN ENGINE an advantage in search results or advertising
    • Google can be FORCED to ALLOW THIRD PARTIES access to the SAME APIs used in Chrome and Chromium.
    • Google can be FORBIDDEN from BLOCKING THIRD PARTY FRONTENDS from using Google Search, Youtube and more.
    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.

      Don’t they, err, already do this?

      I mean a search engine is literally just a website and absolutely nothing prevents you from just going to duckduckgo.com or bing.com or wherever. Don’t think Chrome prevents you from accessing other search engines in general, and last time I used it (admittedly a while back) it had a setting to change the search engine used by default if you just typed something into the address bar.

      • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        Don’t they, err, already do this?

        No, They don’t. They have stolen that initial choice from you by paying companies to be the “default” choice. They do this to capture those who are lazy or indolent about their choices, or to entrap those who are too un-savvy to change the preference.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          You do know there’s a big difference between a “default” option and a “mandatory” setting, right? Specifically that you do, in fact, have a choice to change a default?

          Not forcing the user to proactively make a choice is not the same thing as denying the user the ability to choose.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 months ago

    Google gained their initial position fair and square. They had the better search engine, and despite the likes of Bing being actually pretty good they were never able to compete.

    All Google had to do was to follow its initial mantra of “don’t be evil”. That’s literally all it needed to do. Sadly, they were evil, and these are the seeds of that evil. I maintain today that Chrome, YouTube, Maps, and Search would still be dominant if Google were to welcome third-parties to compete and take space on their devices.

    This, IMO, is a case that is damaging to their CEO above anything else. It shows that over the last few years many of the steps taken that have alienated fans and employees have actually damaged the company too. The exec actions have damaged them, and as such the execs should pay the price or course-correct.

  • xttweaponttx@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    3 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.

          • atro_city@fedia.io
            0·
            3 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
              02·
              3 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.