this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
719 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59594 readers
3363 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So as I understand it, Google’s using it’s monopoly market position to force web “standards” unilaterally (without an independent/conglomerate web specification standards where Google is only one of many voices) that will disadvantage its competitors and force people to leave its competitors.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm a fledgling tech guy, but this sounds like abuse of a monopoly. Google which serves 75% of the world's ads and has 75% of the browser market share seems to want to use its market power to annihilate people's privacy and control over their web experience.

So we can file a complaint with FTC led by Lina Khan who has been the biggest warrior against abuse by big tech in the US.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation

We can also file a complaint with the DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center

And there have to be EU, UK, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese organizations that we can file antitrust complaints to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I never left Firefox, and I will never understand, why people were so quick to adopt Chrome which was Google controlled from the start. Google was already an obvious problem at the time (2008).

Google never had an interest in building the best browser for users. They are not a browser company, they are an advertiser. What they wanted is the best browser for Google, meaning the best browser for delivering advertising. They only made the best browser to attract users with no political foresight. That is becoming more and more obvious. Google has been trying to kill Firefox for a while, by making parts of their services not work quite as intended. While if you changed your user agent, it would work fine!

Another place here today, we can read how Google is trying to kill Jpeg XL or JXL, which is a superior graphics format to JPG PNG and GIF wrapped into 1. https://lemmy.world/post/2059816

Firefox really helped protect the Internet and Internet users from the shenanigans of Microsoft. It should come as no surprise, that Google wants to control the Internet, just as much as Microsoft did, from a pure business perspective, that's an obvious move, and our best defense is still Mozilla and Firefox and lawmakers that aren't corrupt. So don't elect trump to get another Ajit Pai who has no bigger wish than to kill net neutrality.

[–] matt@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You have to realise that to most people, Google is not seen as a bad company - quite the opposite in fact. They have all these "free" products that do everything you need them to, so they've built-up a huge amount of trust with the general population.

Google is obviously trying to take over the web, but the regular person doesn't see this as they don't follow any of this news, nor do they actually care. Google has good, fast, free products, that's all people care about.

[–] jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

As someone deeply immersed in libre software and the Free Software Foundation, it pains me that my conversations are likely always going to be the first time people have actually seriously thought about their software freedom. It's really difficult unwinding decades and billions of dollars of corpocratic propaganda without resorting to shock and scare tactics.

I'm still going to do it because there's nothing else better to say. :D

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You have to realise that to most people, Google is not seen as a bad company - quite the opposite in fact.

You are right, maybe I tend to forget that is not obvious to everybody. But it's not like I believe Google is inherently bad or evil, they just have an enormous amount of power that I think very few people realize. Google search alone or YouTube alone can make or break companies, can shift elections, can shift popular opinion in general. That's to much power IMO.

Power corrupts as we know, and although Google is not worse than most, they aren't better either, and they are using their power in subtle ways, to promote their own interests.

[–] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

why people were so quick to adopt Chrome which was Google controlled from the start.

Because for a long time Chrome was just much faster. It wasn't until a couple of months ago that Firefox started becoming performant enough for me to use as a daily driver. Even then, there's still issues with how slow it takes Mozilla to implement new web technologies like WebGPU, etc.

[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This Manifest V3 business with Chrome is going to be the trigger for me to jump ship.

If we spin up the way back machine, Chrome became popular as a competitor to Internet Explorer. Even though IE had the vast majority of market share it was a truly awful product. It was slow, unreliable, and insecure. Chrome resolved those issues and it was the reason I went with it at the time. Basically I was just looking to dump IE.

At the time Firefox was clunky, unpopular, and did not have good compatibility across all sites. Now that Chrome is less desirable we're left with Firefox as the best alternative. It's come a long way since IE and Chrome went head to head. It's a much better product now with a bigger user base.

[–] rDrDr@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the time Firefox was clunky, unpopular, and did not have good compatibility across all sites

Firefox was an excellent, fast, highly compatible, alternative to Internet Explorer. It was already winning when Chrome came on the scene. However, Firefox actually got more clunky and slower over time, so Chrome was a breath of fresh air in comparison. People like me who used Firefox back from version 0.6 jumped to Chrome because it was doing what Firefox used to do. Chrome was a genuinely better product for a long time, but then like Firefox, it too got slower and more clunky. Meanwhile, Firefox saw what they were up against and went back to their roots. Firefox has gotten a lot better in the last couple years.

Google also significantly pushed Chrome adoption by encouraging people to download it in Google search and Gmail.

[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's probably true, but when I bailed on IE I tried both and Chrome was the better. I must have missed that early Firefox beats Chrome era. Even so I do remember having compatibility problems with Firefox on some sites and I simply couldn't stand the settings interface. In any case the current awfulness of Chrome removes any question. Chrome is only going downhill and it will probably pick up the pace.

[–] rDrDr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Firefox compatibility got worse as Chrome became more popular. There was a time when Firefox was the standard that everyone developed to. I'm talking like 2003-2004 period. Case in point, to this day Chrome identifies itself as Firefox to websites to get the "Firefox" version of a webpage as opposed to the Internet Explorer version.

[–] MercuryUprising@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firefox has never been slow and clunky. If anything, that was Chrome because it runs so much fucking bloat to scrape your data.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I disagree. I remember Firefox since the days it was called Phoenix (I even remember its grandad - Netscape Navigator) and it ALWAYS was very slow and buggy. Until very recent times when they did a big rewrite.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Firefox used to be very slow, very buggy and full of memory leaks.

[–] DrGunjah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was a Firefox user until they started releasing major versions every few days which broke addons. Not sure how it is today but it was a hassle for a few weeks at least. I switched to chrome because it was the next best option back then.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes that was stupid, I don't deny Chrome could easily be seen as the better browser in some respects.

But it was still pretty obvious that we were on our way to the exact same problems we had with Internet Explorer, and Microsofts attempt to control the Internet, through extensions only available on IE, that were necessary to use several Microsoft technologies, when Microsoft had a monopoly.

[–] DrGunjah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So would you say Firefox has settled down in the last years? I don't like where chrome is going (not only privacy, the "dumbing down" sucks too) and tempted to switch back again. But it requires a bit of work

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'd say yes, there are still frequent upgrades, but IMO add-on breakage is not common anymore in my experience.

I have to admit though, that I'm not using nearly as many add-ons as I used to. uBlock Origin is my most important add-on, and Dark reader, and bypass paywall are also always on add-ons, and they have all worked flawlessly for years.

I'm on Manjaro Linux, so I get updates very frequently and early, although most are probably security updates. So I'm probably near max exposed to breakage, and haven't had problems with it since years ago, when an add-on for splitting windows into panels broke after being unmaintained for quite a while.

Alternatively, you might want to try Chromium, which allegedly should be like Chrome but without the Google shenanigans.

Personally I prefer to not use that either, because it's still heavily influenced by the development of Chrome, but I guess it's better than Chrome from a freedom perspective.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's easy to forget now, but IE was such absolute dogshit for years that literally anything else was better

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Back in the day Firefox delivered the same look and feel with a better experience than IE did.