Technology

1443 readers

1262 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. Use original link

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX

Stein: Google proposal will ‘restore healthy competition’ (www.thecentersquare.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/technology

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seven key points are in a proposed judgment to unlock Google’s monopolized markets.

As proposed:

Google will not be allowed to pay to be the initial default search engine on any phone, device or browser.

Google must share data and information with rival companies the proposal says it unlawfully obtained through monopolization.

Google would divest its Chrome browser.

Google will not be allowed to make Google Search or Google AI mandatory on Android devices.

Google will have to give publishers an opt out in regard to data collected to help train Google’s AI models or provide Generative AI answers.

Google will fund a public awareness campaign that informs consumers on choices for search engines.

A five-member technical committee would implement, monitor and enforce the remedies for 10 years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Google will not be allowed to pay to be the initial default search engine on any phone, device or browser.

I dunno how I feel about this. It's a major source of revenue for Firefox, and it's not like heaps of people are clamoring to use alternatives.

Google must share data and information with rival companies the proposal says it unlawfully obtained through monopolization.

Not sure exactly what it means, but in principle it sounds awesome.

Google would divest its Chrome browser.

Don't like this. A web browser in 2024 is not a viable business on its own. Especially not if you want it to be able to push the market forward. I would much rather see AdSense spun out so that one company doesn't own both the biggest seller of ads and multiple of the biggest buyers (in the form of Google Search, Gmail, and YouTube).

Google will not be allowed to make Google Search or Google AI mandatory on Android devices.

Awesome. Unequivocally.

Google will have to give publishers an opt out in regard to data collected to help train Google’s AI models or provide Generative AI answers.

To be honest I don't love this. I don't see how AI reading an article for training is meaningfully different from anyone else reading an article. But if it is going to be done, it should be legislated for everyone, not just Google.

Google will fund a public awareness campaign that informs consumers on choices for search engines.

Lol. I like the idea, but history has shown public awareness campaigns run by the industry that is having awareness about their faults raised tend not to be the most effective.

In all, I think it's a mixed bag. Some good bits, some bad. On the whole I don't think it's very well thought through if the goal is actually to minimise the harm Google does. I suspect it's more out of ignorance than a deliberate desire to give the appearance of doing something without actually hurting Google though.

[–] jonathan 1 points 19 hours ago

it's not like heaps of people are clamoring to use alternatives.

I wonder if there's a causal relationship there 🤔