DoJ wants Google to sell off Chrome and ban it from paying to be search default

The US Department of Justice last night finally filed court documents proposing Google divest itself of Chrome – the most popular browser in the world by a huge margin. The proposed judgment [PDF], which landed late on Wednesday, is aimed at ending Google's alleged monopoly on search. In addition to requiring the ad slinger to …

[Hubert Cumberdale]

An advertising company should not be allowed to abuse its monopoly on the most-used* browser. It's a pure and simple conflict of interest, as illustrated by its attempts to cripple ad-blocking extensions. At the very least, it should have to be kept at arms length from the core ad-slinging/user-milking aspects of the business.

^{*Note that I intentionally don't say "most popular" or "favourite". A very large fraction of those using it probably don't even really know what a "browser" is: the various strong-arm tactics** that Google has used to achieve such dominance are a fundamental part of the problem.}

^{**I also note the almost amusing situation of Microsoft trying to do the same very heavily for Edge and Bing, but failing miserably.}

[cyberdemon]

Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

Who the heck is there who would want to buy chrome, could afford to buy it, and would be a good custodian of it?

Certainly not Microsoft...

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

As regards being able to afford it - it would be a forced sale which makes a big difference to Google's ability to set a price. But let's go one step further, make it open source overseen by a foundation.

[Furious Reg reader John]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

That sounds brilliant - it would be great if the foundation could have a website at a snappy URL, something like chromium.org, for example.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

Or exactly like chromium.org?

[BOFH in Training]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

OS may be the best option, cos if someone buys Chrome, they need to make money from it. That means paying for Chrome / updates / everything.

Of cos if going OS, there is always Firefox ..... no idea if Mozilla can combine both browsers together into the one.

Google and MS and whoever can always customise the OS Chrome. Or create their own plugins to the OS Chrome.

[O'Reg Inalsin]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

Those who could, would. Those who should, won't. The prize is PI and political leverage. Money is no object.

[DS999]

Re: Google to be forced to sell Chrome.. But who would, could, should buy it?

Doesn't matter if they're a good custodian of it. By default they'd be a better custodian than Google because they don't have all the conflicts around a massive advertising business and monopolies or near monopolies on a bunch of server side stuff like search, maps, webmail and user created video, plus big chunks of online productivity apps and cloud.

While you might hate them even Meta would be a better option since while they have a big ads business it is smaller than Google's, and they don't have any real business outside of their social media stuff to leverage it against. No server side stuff, nothing touching the enterprise market, no cloud.

Or don't sell it, make them spin it off into a separate company and that company can sell the default search engine placement to fund it.

[Gene Cash]

> An advertising company

Sigh. I remember when Google was a search engine company. I feel so old.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I remember when HotBot (pre-Lycos) was my search engine of choice and Google was just a silly word. I still miss it. Mainly because it actually gave me what I was looking for, and if what I was looking for didn't exist, it would say as much rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead.

[that one in the corner]

> and if what I was looking for didn't exist, it would say as much rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead.

And if what I was looking for DOES exist, it would say as much (in the first results) rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead (for page after page before reluctantly indicating the right answer).

[toejam++]

Similar deal with AltaVista (pre-Yahoo). But that was also an era before spamdexing and other search engine manipulation techniques became common.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

2 thumbs down

> Larry and Sergey have entered the chat.

[Me.I.Am]

My choice

It's already my choice. I choose to use Chrome and I choose to use Google.com to search.

I understand the risks involved. I simply prefer the convenience.

I am sensible with what I share online. Google can have at my data. I'm far too tight with my money to ever purchase from any crappy add the is "tailored" to my requirements.

[IceC0ld]

Re: My choice

your 'data' is not that which you believe it to be, Google take EVERYTHING they can, and use the computer to do what computers do best, they crunch the numbers to find connections, and THIS is what they use to make their money :o(

so, in short, but not exhaustive, they will have your IP, times you were active, duration of times you were active, IP's of sites you visited / passed through, details of any interaction on any of these sites, again, duration and times of said interactions, they do not need any actual details of where / when / what you were doing, they will be able to build a map of your actions that is just as useful to them and way more insightful than anything you may have thought of

remember, the first wave of PC's were used to create better PC's :o(

and 'they' have gotten pretty good at it by now

[Headley_Grange]

Re: My choice

"so, in short, but not exhaustive......" ....And? I'm waiting for the end of your fable. Who dies? What actually happens that's bad? What material harm will come to Me.I.Am as a result of the apparently apolcalyptic events you describe in your post? Fuck all, I suspect.

I've got Noscript and Adblock and UBlock and cookie consent add-ons up to my ears but more and more, recently, as more sites don't load and more payments fail and more videos don't run I'm heading towards not bothering and just blocking ads and annoyances like pop-out videos. I'm going to cycle to the pub tomorrow night without a helmet, on icy roads and then cycle home in the early hours of Saturday morning on icier roads after 8 pints and a couple of whiskies. That would be considered dangerous by many, but Google knowing my IP address isn't.

[Fonant]

Re: My choice

Who dies? What actually happens that's bad?

Ever wonder how the USA's "democracy" managed to elect a convicted criminal, with known unpleasant attitudes and a liking for Russian money, to be President?

Data on people on a massive scale can be used to manipulate the people via targetted advertising and messaging: leading to a break-down in truth, trust, and hence democracy. See also: Brexit.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: My choice

Wow. TDS at its best

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: My choice

Had to look TDS up.

"The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit any criticism of him, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world."

Makes sense.

[PTW]

Re: break-down in truth, trust, and hence democracy. See also: Brexit.

Missing 20M votes probably, and give over with your Brexit nonsense.

Not anon, cos I don't give a flying about your down votes. You were wrong, you lost, I, nor anyone else has to agree with your point of view. But seriously, 8 years later and you're still whining?

Wail, "democracy is broken because people didn't vote the way I wanted them to!!!1" Take a deep breath, and listen to yourself, please.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: break-down in truth, trust, and hence democracy. See also: Brexit.

"8 years later and you're still whining?"

Yup. Because the injustice of basing a stupid decision on an incredibly slim majority that would go very differently if we were given the choice again has no time limit.

To be slightly crass: "The firebombing of [Coventry/Dresden]*? [84/80]* years later and you're still whining?" Yes. Yes we are. It was a terrible decision then and it still is now.

^{*Pick a side. Or don't; they were both terrible.}

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: break-down in truth, trust, and hence democracy. See also: Brexit.

Mate, Britain has been going down the shitter for years, Brexit was just another event on the timeline, it didnt change the direction.

More immigrants particularly those that cant read or write or have skills like goat hurding that will never get them a job if they stayed in Brexit would have also ruined Britain. Dont blame Brexit, blame the modern concept of internationalism, which is full of bullshit and ignores reality.

Everybody in EU is losing today, please dont count numbers from economists, count what makes life worth living.

If you ebleived economists America is a success, and Spain is one of the worst economies in EU, but if you look at the real world, its clear too see that Spain is so far ahead of USA is not a joke.

Go watch videos of Spain, basically no homeless people, clean streets, shops filled with some of the best food in the world, people having a good time. What do you see in America ?

NYC trains look like something from India, homeless people everywhere, shops that are boarded up because of the well violence and theft, and economists say America is better than Spain ?

Fuck off it is.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: My choice

-- after 8 pints and a couple of whiskies -- The dangerous part is finding somewhere for a pee that won't involved getting arrested!

[Paul Kinsler]

Re: Google take EVERYTHING they can

Including some thing you might not expect ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08072-x

[O'Reg Inalsin]

Re: My choice

And the entity that buys Chrome won't? It is guaranteed the purchasers of Chrome will first of all find new and innovative ways to monetize your browsing data. That doesn't mean what Google does with it now is benign. However I'm 90% certain the sale will make it worse, and increase security risks. My first browser is Firefox, but sometimes I have to open another browser because Firefox can't handle all sites. Sometimes even a bank site. So far Chrome has handled all sites, always.

Why not enforce opt-in advertising first? Or EU style privacy laws? Rhetorical questions, aren't they?

[LybsterRoy]

Re: My choice

OK so Google collects all this data and then uses it to con advertising companies (or the marketing department of actual companies that sell something) who then "target" ads at me which I promptly ignore (assuming I've even noticed them).Next?

[Not_A_Hat]

Re: My choice

The real threat of 'targeted advertising' is that there's no promise that such targeting will stay in the hands of 'the marketing departments of actual companies', as you so blithely suggest.

Consider advertising like a gun, with your info being targeting data. Google is happy to hand that gun to anyone who pays. In the hands of marketing departments of actual companies, it's mildly annoying or distracting. But anyone - literally anyone - can buy or sell addspace; the only criterion is money.

And if they refuse to even pay, they can just hack an ad that does. Like, if I don't want to pay Google for a gun, I can just punch someone else and take theirs, once it's targeting a person who's demographics I like.

So, say I think up a scam targeting your demographic in particular; if your information is well-known, that scam will hit you precisely, as will every other fraud or attempt by a bad actor. If your info isn't well-known, instead you'll get a random assortment of scams and fraud opportunities.

I don't believe myself smart enough to outsmart everyone; better to just keep my attack surface low, so only scattered attacks will hit me.

It's a bit paranoid - but that's how I think.

[abend0c4]

Re: My choice

You will continue to have the choice to use Google Chrome in the same way that other people today have the choice not to: theoretically.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is an ideal solution or that it will lead to a new dawn of browser development. It's just that your satisfaction with the limited choice available to you is outweighed by the market dominance that accompanies it. Your choice presupposes a cost to other people that they have no current choice but to accept.

Tricky business, free will (and the illusion thereof).

[A. Coatsworth]

Re: My choice

>>I understand the risks involved

You are an exception, as is most of the people who frequent these forums. This is not an accurate representation of how the average person uses internet.

>>I am sensible with what I share online

You are doubly an exception here. I commend you for that. The problem is that the vast majority of internet users don't even know that there are risks associated to what they share, much less that there are options beyond Google. For them. one day the blue e stopped being "the internet" and instead the colorful circle became that.

Alphabet has a virtual monopoly over the way people access the internet. This goes beyond the information they may have about any individual, and this kind of monopolies are never healthy.

NB: I am not one of the downvoters.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: My choice

I use Slimjet & DDG but " I'm far too tight with my money to ever purchase from any crappy add the is "tailored" to my requirements." YES. That's me as well.

[heyrick]

If it's that good and useful...

The proposal also states that publishers should be able to opt out in of to AI overviews without fear of retaliation.

There, fixed that for them.

Why is the onus on everybody else to track the latest greatest AI bot and find out how to connect to it to opt out, likely after it has already snarfed everything in sight...

[ecofeco]

Re: If it's that good and useful...

Socialize the risks and privatize the profits, that's why.

[catprog]

Re: If it's that good and useful...

Would you also allow publishers to opt in to having their content learned from by humans?

[amanfromMars 1]

Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

Is that a legitimate remit of any Department of Justice .... to slice and dice and break up a successful intelligence and business enterprise with orders that favour and reward inferior competition in opposition unable to attract and foster similarly rewarding operations?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

The remit of any DoJ should be to safeguard the public interest. If that's what safeguarding the public interest requires then, yes, it's in their remit.

[amanfromMars 1]

Should is not the same as shall, could is not the same as can and/or will

The remit of any DoJ should be to safeguard the public interest. If that's what safeguarding the public interest requires then, yes, it's in their remit. .... Doctor Syntax

Many more than just an engaging few commenting here, Doctor Syntax, would regard that safeguard serially unmet and chronically abused whenever servering private interests and thus a corrupt perversion redirecting blind justice to cast its prosecutorial gaze elsewhere. ....... which will always eventually result in a colossal new reckoning which cannot be avoided.

Kicking cans down the road render the journeys ahead one rich store of rewarding incriminating evidence.

[Yankee Doodle Doofus]

Re: Should is not the same as shall, could is not the same as can and/or will

Does anyone else get the sense that "amanfromMars 1" is a chatbot that resulted from someone feeding an LLM every thesaurus they could find?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Should is not the same as shall, could is not the same as can and/or will

LLMs are generally less cryptic :)

[Lon24]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

I've built a brilliant better-than-chrome browser. Heard of it, downloaded it? Bet you haven't.

OK it's a figment of my imagination - but do you really think I could get funding for development and marketing? Thought not. No sane investor would dream of breaking the Google monopoly. without being considerably richer than Google. Ask Mozilla. But point me to any insane investors who haven't already bought the AI kool-aid and I'll split the proceeds between our holiday funds ;-)

[Boris the Cockroach]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

ever heard of "standard oil"... it was big in the 1890s-1900s I mean big.. as in huge.... as in supplying 95% of the US's oil... and because of its size, no one else could get a look into the oil market.

As a result, standard oil could charge what they liked for oil.

So it was broken up using the anti-trust laws, with the result there were a bunch of smaller oil companies competing with each other.

This is what the computer browser/operating system market really needs, for those with 90%+ market share to be broken up before they start charging what they like and not bothering to improve their products because theres no competition.

[LybsterRoy]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

Did all tyhe small companies start selling different incompatible types of oil?

Google are stiffing the other ad slingers - who really cares about them?

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

BULLSHIT

On paper if you look at Labels, Stanard OIl was broken up, but its children still exist until this day and there have been mergers.

They just have better manners, but the cartel is still there.

Labels are just labels they dont have any meaning, jus tlike Democratic in a countries name doesnt mean that is is.

The OIL comapnies still worked together to buy and shutdown all the trams and trains 70ish years ago... so dont bullshit me and tell me theres no cartel.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Criminals “R" Us .... Robed Post Modern Day Robbers and Renegade Carpetbaggers

BULLSHIT

On paper if you look at Labels, Stanard OIl was broken up, but its children still exist until this day and there have been mergers.

They just have better manners, but the cartel is still there.

Labels are just labels they dont have any meaning, jus tlike Democratic in a countries name doesnt mean that is is.

The OIL comapnies still worked together to buy and shutdown all the trams and trains 70ish years ago... so dont bullshit me and tell me theres no cartel.

[Mage]

also for Apple and Mozilla.

"If those go away, there will be blood – not just for Google but also for Apple and Mozilla."

No, Google has plenty of other stuff. A slight dent.

Down the back of sofa money for Apple. They won't care.

Yes, a problem for already dying Mozilla, who have worked hard to wreck Firefox and Thunderbird GUIs, and are now by default breaking privacy too (though you can turn it off). Mozillla needs reformed badly.

[jokerscrowbar]

A simple sale to some faceless offshore consortium for $1 who then lease it back to Alphabet.

Same shit but even shittier.

[CowHorseFrog]

Look at FF, only 9 months of funding... hardly a shock with the board paying themselves millions.

Its almost like Alphabet send FF the new CEO....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would want to buy Chrome?

Chrome is simply a means for Google to collect your data and serve you ads that make them money.

Who would pay for Chrome without a way to generate revenue from it?

[mark l 2]

Re: Who would want to buy Chrome?

Well my worry is that someone like Zuckerberg or Musk would end up buying Chrome and making it an even worse privacy nightmare than it already is.

But with a new administration due to take office in a couple of months with a lot of very dodgy appointees in high positions and with America now electing a convicted criminal who has shown time and time again that he can be persuaded by money, then im sure Google will be able to grease enough palms to make all this go away at least for another 4 years.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Who would want to buy Chrome?

The DoJ have said Google needs to divest itself of Chrome. Payment is optional. If no other entity wishes to pay for it, that doesn't let Google off the hook - there is even the possibility they may even have to pay someone else to take it.

[Marcelo Rodrigues]

Re: Who would want to buy Chrome?

"The DoJ have said Google needs to divest itself of Chrome. Payment is optional."

But "divest" is different from "selling". Strictly speaking, they can just shut it down. Close development, pack the bags and go. Leave the source repo open for some time, in order to fulfill obligations, then close.

I mean, someone will probably buy it. But "divest" doesn't mean "sell it to someone". I think the DOJ would be quite happy if Google said "ok, I'll terminate the browser then and will not use the trademark."