Instead of simply flailing our collective arms around complaining about an evil corporation, has anyone written to the respective competition authorities (such as the FTC in the US or CCI in India) about the potential anticompetitive effects of this proposal?
Their leadership isn't "awful", their leaders are finally doing their job, for the first time in decades.
I've also created a parliament petition, which has gotten the 5 min supporters it needs before they review and publish it. I will share it on HN once its published.
Edit: removed the link to the petition for now (it'll come back after its published)
- ban Google all together in your personal life. No chrome and no excuses. Stop the bullshit or leave this profession. Use startpage, duckduck or whatever for searching.
- develop with and for firefox and friends only, introduce usability problems for chrome
- employ the same tactics as google.
-> Bundle firefox with the software you are distributing.
-> Like google did, remove the competition altogether from the users device.
-> make your npm-module or your website slower in chrome
-> let your customers know that your service for non-chrome users is cheaper. Money motivates.
-> show a popup urging users to download firefox, provide a link to download or page with more explanation.
Tell that you detected that their current chrome has security and privacy risks and that you recommend to take action immediately. Average user is easily scared into action.
-> use as many tricks as you can think of to spoil the well for google.
Destroy search results, fill their storage with /dev/random, whatever your imagination leads you too. You keep telling us you are so smart. Show it.
If I recall correctly, this was Google's approach with Chrome.
What they lost in the case they filed in June was an enjoinment to prevent the merger and acquisition of Activision/Blizzard until their own FTC judge (read: an administrative law judge that exists outside of Article III and is within the chain of command of the Executive branch) could hear the case on August 2nd. The merger had a termination date of July 18th, so they needed that to continue their administrative review. Discovery was finished, it was just the trial, but without being able to enjoin the trial because in the opinion of Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley they were unlikely to prove the merits of their assertions, the trial before the FTC judge would have been moot by the time it occurred. It’s been formally cancelled by the FTC by the way.
I’m not disagreeing with you by the way, I just wanted a place to park this information in the discussion. They started this action in December and failed to win even an enjoinment against Microsoft and Activision temporarily stopping the merger until their own guy could hear the case.
Contact info for antitrust authorities:
US:
- https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation
- antitrust@ftc.gov
EU:
- https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en
- comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu
UK:
- https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition...
- general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk
India:
- https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/
I could not find an easy contact method for filing a complaint for the CCI, but it looks like this is the process?
- https://www.cci.gov.in/filing/atd
Canada:
- https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-e...
I'm happy to share what I've sent to the FTC if others want to use it as a template.
-> let your customers know that your service for non-chrome users is cheaper. Money motivates.
Yes, I have. A couple times now.
Google has been strongly signaling this since last year. No one wanted to believe it last year though, before the tech bubble burst. Now that people see Google isn't so awesome right now, perhaps more people will write and contact their representatives.
But that doesn't mean that what they do, big picture, is pointless.
I would like to bring your attention to Google’s recent proposal to add a feature to its Chrome (Chromium family) of browsers called Web Environment Integrity. This provides a mechanism to reinforce Google’s already dominant browser market position by creating a technological control that can be used to nullify a user’s choice of browser, device and operating system. This technology also has the potential for abuse by preventing users from using browser extensions that can enhance security by blocking unwanted and potentially malicious content, as well as browser extensions that help vulnerable users with enhanced accessibility needs, such as color blindness and visual impairment.
Google’s dominant, near-monopoly position in the browser market already harms me as a consumer by reducing browser choices and preventing a competitive market for developing new browsers. Allowing Google to include this feature will reduce my browser choices and consolidate the browser market even further, and it is incumbent on [INSERT AUTHORITY HERE] to take action against this abusive behavior.Just a reminder that several states have already filed an antitrust suit (in part) over a previous Google plan to turn the web into their own walled garden.
> Project NERA was Google’s original plan to create a closed ecosystem out of the open internet. Google documents reveal that Google’s motive was to “successfully mimic a walled garden across the open web [so] we can protect our margins.”
According to Google’s internal documents, the strategy would allow Google to extract even higher intermediation fees. A Google employee aptly described Google’s ambition for Project NERA to “capture the benefits of tightly ‘operating’ a property … without ‘owning’ the property and facing the challenges of building new consumer products.”
Google main strategy to do this was to leverage its popular browser, Chrome, to track users, by forcing them to stay logged into the browser. Google did this by logging users into the browser when they logged into any Google property such as Gmail or YouTube, and logging them out of services when they logged out of the browser.
https://mspoweruser.com/project-nera-state-attorneys-general...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56...
This is incredibly hypocritical. I would never want to work with or for, or employ, or be friends with or associate myself with someone who blatantly displayed this level of hypocrisy and lack of integrity.
This comment is also clearly violating the HN guidelines - it's not intellectually interesting, it's naked political activism.
On hypocrisy: Both cancer and cancer surgery are aggressive, doesn't make them the same. Google violated competition laws, we as individuals don't.
Has anyone already made a template for this that you can easily include in your website?
There were some reasonable criticism that it was too long/wordy hopefully you can adapt and reformat to your liking.
Dear [Recipient],
I'm writing to highlight an important matter regarding the digital freedom and competitiveness on the internet. Google is rapidly advancing a policy named "Web Environment Integrity" (WEI) in their Chromium browser.
WEI allows developers to regulate browser configurations, which could lead to limiting the usage of free browsers or operating systems. This creates a potential for a web environment that discriminates based on browser usage. Further, this scenario could pave the way for governments and corporations to enforce specific browser usage and could also allow Google to restrict access to their services based on browser compliance.
This practice contradicts the fundamental principles of an open and competitive digital marketplace. I strongly encourage your agency to investigate the potential impacts of Google's WEI and consider taking necessary actions.
Your proactive engagement is vital in preserving the principles that ensure a free and open web.
Best regards,
[Your Name]