zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
If this isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back, there is never going to be one.

Google needs to be broken up.

They own the browser market. They own the web (through Adwords). They own Search. They own mobile. They own most of the video sharing market with 2.5 billion monthly annual users. They own a good chunk of email with 1.2 billion monthly annual users.

They have amassed an incomprehensible amount of power and influence over humanity and they have proven repeatedly that they are willing to use that power to the detriment of humanity and to entrench themselves further.

Google needs to be broken up.

>>mozbal+O4
Why should the US break up an asset like Google? Would be completely self defeating. This isn't like standard oil or at&t, that mostly had influence and market share inside the US. It would basically be handing power to foreign competitors who would pounce at the opportunity

And I'm not American so it's not even some sort of patriotic comment. If Europe , or anywhere else, had a Google sized Behemoth, they wouldn't mess with it no matter how "anti tech" they might seem now. If anything they are anti tech because they don't want foreign big tech to have massive influence over them. You'd bet they wouldn't cripple big tech if they were European. On the other hand, as long as they are American that massive power is a feature, not a bug for the US government.

The reaction to Tiktok is a good example of how nationalism/geopolitics shape the reaction to big tech, which is why google is probably safe.

>>mardif+4j
One thing comes to mind: antitrust! It happened to Microsoft as well!!

>>lacrim+sm
...and Microsoft has more power than Google at the moment

>>bagacr+4s
But anti-trust stalled Microsoft's efforts at a critical time and allowed Firefox and Safari (like Gecko) to restore a standards-based web from an IE-based web. It's not a cure all but it worked. IE had 95% marketshare in 2002 and Firefox took a third of that from them in a few years thanks to anti-trust and the consent decree it forced on MS.

>>asadot+dC1
Chrome has nowhere near 95% market share so it would be hard to make the same case against them.

Given that it's open-source and anyone can roll and distribute a tweaked version of Chromium (and many have, notably Microsoft), it's really hard to see an argument here that Google is acting anti-competitively. If anything it's very pro-competitive to give away your secret sauce to your competitors.

Just because their browser is more popular than you would like, and you don't like a feature they're adding, doesn't mean a judge is going to stop them from adding it.