- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
DOJ looking to force Google to sell its Chrome browser
Posted on 11/19/24 at 10:41 am
Posted on 11/19/24 at 10:41 am
quote:
WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice will ask a judge to force Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab to sell off its Chrome internet browser, Bloomberg News reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the plans.
The DOJ will also ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, the report said.
quote:
Google, in a statement from Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president, Google Regulatory Affairs, said the DOJ is pushing a "radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case," and would harm consumers.
LINK
10
Posted on 11/19/24 at 10:50 am to The Egg
That is wild.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 10:51 am to The Egg
Between the new FCC Chairman and AG this will never happen
Posted on 11/19/24 at 10:51 am to Teufelhunden
They're swinging wrecking balls at the big companies.
Can't say I disagree with it for the most part.
Can't say I disagree with it for the most part.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 11:54 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
Can't say I disagree with it for the most part.
I'd love to hear a principled argument on the benefits of the government stepping in and forcing a company to divest a product simply because its dominant.
If a monopoly is artificially created, sure no qualms about the DOJ stepping in. If it's simply a dominant product, a completely different story.
This post was edited on 11/19/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 11/19/24 at 11:58 am to The Egg
DOJ needs to request Microsoft shut down that shitty arse browser they put out.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 12:02 pm to The Egg
Google does the bidding of the USG’s propaganda machine. There’s no way this will happen.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 12:55 pm to Seeing Grey
quote:
If a monopoly is artificially created, sure no qualms about the DOJ stepping in
That’s literally the basis of the investigation
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:17 pm to Seeing Grey
Markets left alone usually end in monopolies.
Monopolies are not good for competition, they are not good for the economy, and they are not good for citizens.
It's amazing to me how little free market proponents understand this, and I am very much in favor of free markets.
Markets do not stay efficient just because you leave them alone.
Monopolies are not good for competition, they are not good for the economy, and they are not good for citizens.
It's amazing to me how little free market proponents understand this, and I am very much in favor of free markets.
Markets do not stay efficient just because you leave them alone.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:19 pm to Marshhen
quote:
That’s literally the basis of the investigation
A search engine is different than a web browser.
Obviously, there's some level of integration between the two. But if you were to go on the basis of this article, anytime a company has one product being ruled a monopoly, all of their products essentially become a monopoly. Which imo sets a terrible precedent.
I'm only looking at the link provided, if you have other information, of course I could be mistaken.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:31 pm to Seeing Grey
Not a fan of the data mining and selling that Google and other companies do. Chrome itself is based on the free and open-sourced code created by the Chromium project and is the basis for many other browsers, like Edge, Brave and Opera.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:48 pm to Seeing Grey
quote:
If a monopoly is artificially created, sure no qualms about the DOJ stepping in. If it's simply a dominant product, a completely different story.
While I agree, what’s your opinion on Bell, Standard Oil, etc?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:55 pm to Teufelhunden
quote:
Between the new FCC Chairman and AG this will never happen
Google seems to be aligning itself with a Soros funded resist Trump and Republican agenda. You would think they wouldn’t be so open about it if they thought Trump would be better for them.
I think the dems are going to try to push through a settlement to avoid any additional actions with new administration.
quote:
Priorities USA, a top Democratic super PAC with an affiliated dark money group, is convening a summit of left-wing digital activists on Wednesday afternoon to deliver a post-mortem on Vice President Kamala Harris’s election loss and strategize how to "resist the Republican agenda," according to an invite obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Afterwards, Priorities USA invited attendees to attend an afterparty that will be "co-hosted by our friends at Google."
"Recognizing that there is still a lot of data to be collected and analysis to be done, we hope that you will join our 2024 Digital Retrospective during which we will discuss what was done online this cycle and how we can prepare to resist the Republican agenda,"…
quote:
Trump has long been a fierce critic of Google, alleging that the company has "rigged" its search engine to inundate users with negative stories about him. Though Trump signaled on the campaign trail he wasn’t willing to break up Google as a monopoly so long as it serves as a bulwark against China, the president-elect said he would do "something" about its search engine to "make sure it’s more fair."
… Big Tech is also on edge over Trump’s nomination of former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) to serve as attorney general. During his four terms in the House, Gaetz established himself as one of the most outspoken Republican supporters of antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech, going so far as to praise President Joe Biden’s Justice Department during a 2023 hearing for its antitrust legal efforts against Google.
"I think you’re doing a good job, and that is a painful admission for me to have to make about anyone who works at the Department of Justice," Gaetz told Biden’s Justice Department antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter, adding that he was "perhaps just as concerned about the monopoly power of Google" and urged him to "continue to pursue those cases," the Washington Post reported.
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/google-hosts-party-for-democratic-operatives-plotting-to-resist-the-republican-agenda/
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:55 pm to el duderino III
quote:
Markets left alone usually end in monopolies.
Monopolies are not good for competition, they are not good for the economy, and they are not good for citizens.
It's amazing to me how little free market proponents understand this, and I am very much in favor of free markets.
Markets do not stay efficient just because you leave them alone.
Well you said so, so it must be true that markets left alone end in monopolies in the light of such evidence.
What's amazing to me, is the counter argument to free markets is, use free markets for your benefit when you deem necessary and then control them when it doesn't.
Completely missing the point, that you have to define a monopoly, then define when a company breaks the monopoly rules, then appoint someone to monitor and enforce such rules. All the while creates multiple points of failure and a governing body ripe for compromise that will almost certainly create a situation where companies use the rules in their favor to create monopolies.
Furthermore, free markets does not equate to unmonitored markets. You can have free markets and then rules that enforce free markets. Monopolies, should only be broken up when they break free market rules. Didn't really consider that was a debatable position.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 1:56 pm to The Egg
Is it really Google's fault that Microsoft shite the bed with their own browser and that's why everyone uses Chrome?
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:03 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
While I agree, what’s your opinion on Bell, Standard Oil, etc?
I honestly have no opinion, since I don't know much about the surrounding facts of those cases other than standard pop culture knowledge. I'd defer to the "market" opinion on those if you will.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:22 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
While I agree, what’s your opinion on Bell, Standard Oil, etc?
I don’t agree, and for the reasons you listed and the railroad consolidations. It doesn’t matter if the trust came about through acquisitions designed to create a monopoly, or through innovation that created a natural monopoly. Either trust will engage in price fixing and anti-competition if it is allowed to exist. That’s just human nature.
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:25 pm to Seeing Grey
quote:
I'd love to hear a principled argument on the benefits of the government stepping in and forcing a company to divest a product simply because its dominant.
The argument would not necessarily be the dominance, but the web of patents and rulings that overall kills the market for everyone that isn't them.
The cool kids just push for increased SOX reporting requirements and other red tape, which massively increases the costs of running businesses in industry, effectively killing startups.
This post was edited on 11/19/24 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:37 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
The argument would not necessarily be the dominance, but the web of patents and rulings that overall kills the market for everyone that isn't them.
The cool kids just push for increased SOX reporting requirements and other red tape, which massively increases the costs of running businesses in industry, effectively killing startups.
I am very much in favor of rules that level the playing field for startups to enter, literally the definition of free markets. If that was the case here, it wouldn't be Google divest Chrome, it would we will remove red tape to allow competition among web browsers.
That doesn't appear to be the case here. The proponents of this approach, do you really think the DOJ is doing this to benefit the end user or have control and influence on 95% of the population's web access?
This post was edited on 11/19/24 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 11/19/24 at 2:45 pm to The Egg
Does the DOJ not know that people can just use a different browser?
Its not like they have a monopoly.
Firefox, Brave, IE (or whatever its called now).
Its not like they have a monopoly.
Firefox, Brave, IE (or whatever its called now).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News