Stein: Google proposal will ‘restore healthy competition’

Submitted ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Joker@sh.itjust.works⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.zip⁩

https://www.thecentersquare.com/north_carolina/article_c78d6d82-ab7d-11ef-ac45-cb1fc8934064.html?a

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.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
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.
source
- jonathan@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  it’s not like heaps of people are clamoring to use alternatives.
  
  I wonder if there’s a causal relationship there 🤔
  
  source