this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
299 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

60109 readers
2414 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Google is offering a far more pared-down solution to the court’s ruling that it illegally monopolized search

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 72 points 3 days ago (3 children)

it's a huge deal for google. they control the browser used by the vast majority of users, and the engine behind the one (such as edge, opera, vivaldi, etc) used by still more. they rely on those users to see and interact with ads to make money.

besides the obvious--driving traffic to their web properties that have their ads; they get to siphon off all that sweet user data which makes their ads 'more valuable', and control addon functionality and restrictions as well as the primary 'marketplace' where those addons come from. their ultimate goal of killing off ad blockers completely, the limits mv3 puts on adblockers is just the next step in that direction.

should a third-party acquire control over chrome's development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.

[–] nous@programming.dev 21 points 3 days ago (2 children)

should a third-party acquire control over chrome's development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.

That is far too optimistic. If the courts force a sale then a for profit company will but it expecting a return on investment. Which very likely means more monetisation efforts like embedding ads or even more tracking built into it. It is a fantasy to think who ever gets it will scale anything you dislike about it back.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 days ago

I'd be interested in what restrictions are between those two companies, because it seems to me like there'd be a lot of money in making Chrome what Google wants it to be.

I'm already out. Linux desktop, Firefox browser. It's enough for me. Fuck MS, fuck Google, fuck Apple.

[–] albert180@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Unless they monetize the wanted Features Like Ad-Blocking. 10$/Month for No Ads everywhere is a Deal that many people would probably Take. Sponsorblock, DeArrow, Video Background Player Fix, there are many QoL Improvements that a Browser Company might include to sell a Browser Subscription or likewise

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just like paying for no ads on prime video? I'd rather donate to one or more independent plugin developers.

[–] albert180@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

Same

But there are a Lot of people Out there WHO pay 15$ for YouTube Premium, If you can get way better content for that Money elsewhere

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 12 points 3 days ago

it also allows them to push web standards in whatever direction they feel like

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

All good points, but even without Chrome they became one of the biggest companies in the history of Earth. Even without Chrome they'll still have Android and will undoubtedly spit out a Chromev2 browser experience that suckers will flock to - and even without Chrome they'll still likely control all of that search traffic.

Hey if it kills their fingerprinting plans, I'm all for it, but are they going to be prevented from developing a browser? That's like not being allowed to develop a car. Which - again, fine by me, but still unlikely.