this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1238 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59594 readers
2893 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 349 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Do it! Then, do every single major conglomerate they've allowed to form over the last 30 years

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 180 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Antitrust comes in waves in the US. First, it's a free for all to let the tech develop freely...then you see the horrors and a time of antitrust kicks in. This would be the 4th wave since the Sherman Act. Let's hope it's a good one.

[–] 200ok@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Interesting! Go ooooonnnn 😍

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's all I had, I'm not an expert, but I hope they go after FB and microsoft too (in case that makes you feel randy like that other guy in the comments) :P

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 82 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Keep going I’m almost there

[–] _sideffect@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 127 points 3 months ago (1 children)

invest in Sherman Antitrust Act memes now

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 84 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Unless Savannah is some girl he knows, not sure this lands. Savannah, GA wasn't really ever ravaged in the Civil War or anything.

Atlanta's the one that got leveled.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Like that is what you point out, and not the fact they got the wrong Sherman pictured lol. John Sherman ≠ William Tecumseh Sherman

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 22 points 3 months ago

Here you go. Right guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 86 points 3 months ago (7 children)

How about we start restricting how many businesses a company is allowed to buy out in a year. Maybe allow like 1-2 mergers a year. There no reason we should allow one company to buy everyone and then kill their products and services leaving the consumers holding the bag that will no longer function because the server is gone.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 48 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I would say even one a year would be too much.

That unless the business has failed and is no longer operating, for a merger and acquisition to occur they would have to petition the courts for permission first.

Imagine the shit that Microsoft and Google and Adobe and Amazon would be doing if they had to start their companies from scratch and compete against the already extant players in the field?

It would create so many jobs, and create an excess of consumer choice opportunity, lowering prices and fighting against inflation far more than a couple of percentage points on the interest rate index ever would.

I'm tired of only being offered incredibly overpriced very shitty low quality options in every single category.

We don't need $100,000 cars. We need $5,000 cars.

We don't need $1,000,000 homes, we need $25,000 homes that anyone in America who works a full-time job regardless of if they're slinging fries at McDonald's or digging ditches can afford.

We don't need $100 a week grocery bills. We need $5 a week grocery bills.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

One thing that I've always found interesting is that silicon valley has a common start up strategy that is basically: do well enough to get bought buy your bigger competition. Basically, be a threat so your VCs can cash in when a Google, Facebook, etc buys you.

I'm other words, Silicon Valley has a start up culture that feeds an anticompetitive/anti-trust ecosystem. No one complains because they are all making money. It's the users who slowly suffer and we end up were we are not with 5 companies running the modern web and Internet infrastructure.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 67 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Maybe if all their shadiness hadn't been allowed in the first place they wouldn't have been able to become a monopoly.

But please, I beg of you, do Adobe next.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

No, ~~Amazon~~ Nestle next.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] curry@programming.dev 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I remember the days of google being a cool startup that had just made news releasing gmail with a whopping 1GB of storage making everyone go crazy for the invites. It's a strange feeling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Hell, do all the "to big to fail" megacorps.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 58 points 3 months ago (7 children)

God I hope it ends up splitting off Chrome. I think Google has done a great job with Chrome. But the recent Manifest v3 makes it clear they're going to greatly degrade their users' experience for Google's bottom line. And they're using their market dominance to do it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Do it do it do it do it do it do it...

Smash them with a hammer. Google should not exist as it is. Not for decades.

Break up AdSense, chrome, search, android, shatter them all into separate companies that can stop selling out literally every waking aspect of life as their sole business model.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 432@lemmy.world 53 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Best news I've heard all day! Break up Meta, too, while you're at it!

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 52 points 3 months ago (10 children)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago (36 children)

Don't 'break it up', nationalize it, and do the same with all these other giant corporations.

Profits could support UBI instead of encouraging billionaires.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 39 points 3 months ago (22 children)

Separate the search engine from anything that stinks of advertising so it can return to what it’s supposed to do: return the most relevant results.

Because even appending udm=14 only gets rid of promoted links and in-page advertising, it does f**k-all to correct manipulated search results.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Not sure how that would work...

I'm old enough to remember the breakup of Ma Bell and the way that worked was the creation of a bunch of regional telecom services, that's not going to work on the Internet.

I guess they could mandate spinning off Android, but that's not really the problem addressed in the antitrust case, is it?

Maybe split the AdWords side from the Search Engine side?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 75 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

I'd guess it would be a vertical breakup rather than horizontal: separate android, cloud, youtube, search, chrome, ads...depending on how aggressive they want to be.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (8 children)

But if they've only been found to monopolize search, how does that remedy the search monopoly? Presumably the new separate Google Search company would still have a search monopoly.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 37 points 3 months ago

without search and their abuse of that monopoly, google wouldn't have dominant positions or massive market shares that many of their other properties (products, services, software, etc) have.

[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

Because that search monopoly allows them to boost their other products above all others. It’s not an impartial search result anymore. There is a financial incentive to favor their own products.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Neon@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I so want this to happen, but at the same time I'm scared that Samsung or whoever will buy AOSP and enshittify it completely

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

A dog that barks doesn't bite.

"Considering" means they want to get something from Google in exchange for not breaking it up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 25 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Now break up Coca-Cola, those tax dodging fucks.

[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

coca-cola, apple, windows, amazon...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Will this work out for consumers if other tech giants like Apple, Microsoft, or Amazon, etc. aren't also broken up simultaneously? Won't Google's assets just get sucked up into another existing monopoly and we'll be right back where we were but with one less choice than before?

I'm genuinely curious.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Will the old method of breaking up a company work enough on modern tech companies? Will the 2nd best map software ever catch up in market share?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

If you switched most people from google into DDG without telling, most would hardly notice, I venture. Mapping is different.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Fully support the action, don't know how the timing works...

Best case, you only start to basically outline what this looks like before the election. Worst case, you enliven the complacent, left-centrist billionaires to vigorously join in with the perpetually batshit right wing billionaires to get trump in to "live to fight another day" with the reasoning of, "we need to save ourselves first, then we'll deal with trump when he goes full fascist" and then they either won't be able to or won't care to because they won't want to upset their share price.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

PBMs/healthcare conglomerating needs to be looked at as a top priority

And this Kroger Albertsons thing needs to be stopped for good

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So they're breaking up Google but giving Intel more free money after it cut 15k jobs?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 33 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Google also cut 12000 jobs in Jan 2023, but it does not have an AMD or Nvidia to kick its ass in search when it fucks up.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

It would probably do Google a world of good, depending on what gets split or spun off. A lot of Google products have unrealized potential that’s hamstrung by poor leadership and privacy issues. Maybe at least some of their products will be able to thrive on their own.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

What about Microsoft and Facebook?

[–] androogee@midwest.social 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

How do the people who make this comment every single time something like this happens, expect change when no one's allowed to be first?

[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Microsoft already lost an anti-trust suit in 2001. It's in the article if you care to read it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] figaro@lemdro.id 15 points 3 months ago

The people here who 1) think a breakup of Google will actually happen, and 2) think that a paid subscription model for a search engine have all been spending too much time in their Linux bubble.

If Google did this, everyone would just switch to Bing, or open AI's new thing they are making. The general public will not be on board with that.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A tiny bandaid on the capitalism that's literally destroying the planet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›