Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/21/government-sues-google-for-stifling-competition.html
…
2 Likes
And suddenly the Republicans realize the importance of anti-trust laws.
16 Likes
I’m sure some well-placed lobbying will make them forget said importance all over again. Nothing to worry about, go on about your business, btw, have I mentioned our mutual buddy Bezos is reconsidering that distribution center in your state?
9 Likes
I would like nothing better than for Google to let me pay them $10/mo to not track me or collect any data. Maybe that’s giving in, but it’s more practical than the alternatives, and I do value Google Maps at least that much.
7 Likes
More likely that the GOP wants wackadoodle RW sources to show up higher in search results.
5 Likes
I’d pay for that. I already pay for the premium version of youtube/music and think it’s a fair price for ad-free content. The problem though is that I don’t know if it’s worth it for search, since the search results are influenced by gathered data. Surveillance is already baked in the product.
1 Like
I want all tracking to be opt-in - since I never log in to google services and I clear cookies every time I restart my browser I’m hiving to opt-out of everything every time I go to a google page. It’s really annoying. But, I don’t trust the US government to do anything against this. I think maybe the European Union can someday get this right but maybe they’d just impose a fine then take the money and run.
3 Likes
Unfortunately it’s Trump’s emaciated DOJ that’s running the case, so they’ll probably fuck it up and make it that much harder to hold Google to account later
2 Likes
Yeah, I use DuckDuckGo for search just to avoid as much Goog as possible. No Chrome, Photo, Music, Drive etc. But I use Maps so much it hurts.
5 Likes
I’ve worked for a rival search engine, and ultimately Google has a bunch of advantages that are pretty classic homegrown stuff: They’ve been in the business forever so customers treat them as the default options, they’ve got a better product, and there’s no real price comparison for a competitor to win on. Hell, Microsoft gives people stuff just for using Bing and it’s only at like some fraction of the market share.
If the crux of this is the part where google pays phone companies to be the default option, Google isn’t going to suddenly not be the #1 search engine if they were to stop doing this (although personally sure, let’s keep them from doing that). Like they point out, none of those phones are locked to Google. Even Chrome is easily switched to use any number of other search engines.
2 Likes
Google is not really more practical than the alternatives.
I’ve been using OSM for ages now, I don’t miss google maps at all. I even have an old android phone installed in my car for offline navigation.
I search via DuckduckgoGo, which gives me better results, and I use a private and secure email provider for €1 and a free browser that disables all tracking and ads (Brave).
So there’s no need whatsoever throwing $10 at google for exploiting you less. They’ll also never offer that, it’s not their business model.
1 Like
It’s not only annoying, it’s also completely useless if your browser doesn’t randomize it’s fingerprint.
Test it here:
1 Like
Link to the email provider? 
1 Like
1 Like
The old fallacy that says if you’re not paying for the product then you are the product, but increasingly even if you do pay for the product you’re still the product. Just ask the owners of John Deere equipment and ventilators who are forced to install unaudited software from Poland.
Plenty other examples though, there’s no end of internet of shit devices that you have to pay for the privilege of, say, having your bedroom habits data mined.
2 Likes
IANAL, but you don’t have to prove that it’s impossible to use another product for it to be antitrust. Only that most people won’t because they aren’t aware of other options. Remember Microsoft lost their case just for shipping Explorer with Windows and making it the default browser. That case seems quaint in hindsight, but it was a huge deal at the time, and probably the last death knell of real antitrust enforcement unless someone like Elizabeth Warren gets elected president.
2 Likes
Maybe I’m missing it but doesn’t this amount to saying “Hey Google! You’ve cornered too much of the market in profiting from extracting people’s data and selling people’s surfing behaviour to advertisers! What should be happening is a bunch more companies should be allowed into the marketplace to extract people’s data and sell people’s surfing behaviour to advertisers!” Even if the suit succeeds, Google pays a massive fine and the data extraction for profit continues.
1 Like
The timing of this announcement is no accident. Toadstool himself may have already fucked it up. He’s repeatedly floated the idea of suing tech companies for perceived political bias, which gives Google a plausible defense that this anti-trust suit is a politically motivated pretext. Donnie’s mouth is his own worst enemy in court.
While tech companies do engage in anti-competitive behavior, the function of this suit is to pander to their base which believes right-wing voices are being suppressed through search rankings and shadow-bans despite zero evidence that they are and despite the fact that Fecesbook is infested with alt-right disinformation bots Russian and otherwise. This is the voting bloc that believes white people are the victims of genocide. Any horrible thing they perpetrate they project onto others. They’re the bully kid who hits his sister and then cries that she hit him.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
