• ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    Google has had monopoly power over both search and online ads for well over a decade, it’s way past time

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    “love”

    jfc it’s a soulless faceless megacorp. This shit must have been published right out of Minitrue.

  • exohuman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The article’s whole argument sounds like one of the weakest and most common corporate speak nonsense arguments that come up whenever there is a monopoly. It’s almost an admission of being a monopoly.

    That said, the “browsers providing Google search by default money” is probably the economic reason why we still have a Firefox web browser (the only real, fully functioning alternative to the webkit/blink browsers like Chrome). For a long time, it was a significant source of their income.

    Also, the alternatives to Google search need to step up their game. As a tech worker, Bing sucks for results. Yahoo does too since it gets results from Bing. DuckDuckGo isn’t bad. Anyone know better alternatives?

  • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    That is the definition of a monopoly. The real question for the courts is if they are using that power in an anti-competitive way.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    I didn’t read this opinion piece and jumped straight to the bottom to see who wrote it. I wasn’t surprised:

    Barbara Comstock is a former congresswoman and delegate from Virginia and a senior adviser at Baker Donelson. She also was a senior Justice Department official during the Bush administration.