Huge win for Internet freedom: Google must sell its Chrome browser

Is this case decided yet? If I understood the news correctly, they plan to force Google to sell its web browser.

I don't think it is, the article doesn't say much beyond opinions. I also can't find any news talking about it being decided, just proposed.
- Thanks for checking. I didn't find any other recent news on this topic and the original article is from yesterday.
This is just what the DoJ is asking for. Google will give their proposal in December. Then the judge will rule later in 2025. Then no matter what Google will appeal. Nothing is going to happen for years, if at all.
- In Trump’s america google will have the easiest time getting what they want.

Misleading headline. They have asked a court to force it, not triggered anything real, yet. Google will fight it hard because its one of their most powerful surveillance tools.

because it's* one of

Now name them sell YouTube... Or better yet, split it into multiple companies.

Oh God I don't want my YouTube hidden behind multiple paywalls of varying quality. I agree that something should be done about it but it's frankly a miracle of inertia that YouTube hasn't been more aggressively monetized.

And yes, before anyone comments with "have you seen YTs monetization???!!?!!!!", I do in fact mean even more than the shit show it currently is.
YT is the one I'm mixed on, on one hand, the ads are annoying AF if you're not premium and they're becoming more user hostile towards ad blocking every day

But on the other hand, hosting and providing bandwidth for video is not cheap. Hosting and providing bandwidth AND allowing users to upload whatever they want no matter the length (I think there's a limit of 10 hours, which is MORE than generous IMO) OR quality (seriously, who even has the setup to watch 8k videos lol) is REALLY NOT CHEAP

So who else other than Google can provide what YT provides at scale?
- YouTube also lost billions for years and years. Not certain they've turned an overall profit yet.

People who think this is going to really cause a disruption really did not live through the past thirty years of US tech companies being told to break up only to reform again, only stronger.

Google also got fuck you money to make upset politicians to disappear.

"This landmark decision isn’t just about regulating a single company — it’s about standing up for fairness, competition, and a healthier internet ecosystem."

Then the DOJ should rule on what a monopoly is, and go after basically every big company. Take the oil markets for example. Give me a break, the DOJ is a joke, and probably took a bribe from Googles competition.

Guarantee Microsoft is funding this from a shadow shell corporation like all the other times.
Why do we always have comments defending these mega-corps. There's always the "what about..." people saying that something else needing regulating means this mega-corp shouldn't be regulated. How about any of it being regulated is good. We can hopefully get around to the other things eventually, but we can't do it all at the same time. (That, and Trump's adm. probably is going to put a stop to any of it, so just be happy that we've seen anything happen.)
- We can hopefully get around to the other things eventually
  
  I've heard this every election cycle my entire life, particularly from the DNC. "We can't have that because of some arbitrary norm that we have to respect and adhere to that we could totally change, but, oopsies, would ya look at that, we lost the majority, so give us money and elect us and we promise this time we'll get to it! Eventually, after we handle all this other stuff that came up since the last time we got absolutely nothing done to help you, but we promise, this time, for real."
  
  but we can't do it all at the same time.
  
  Says who? We make the rules, it's our government, where in the Constitution does it say "You may only enact legislation that incrementally changes things for the better over the course of decades, assuming none of it is undone?"
  
  so just be happy that we've seen anything happen.
  
  Why? When it doesn't change anything, and it's just going to be undone, why should we be happy about that? Why do we have to keep being "happy" that nothing is changing for the better? Why do we have to keep applauding and cheering and supporting this bullshit when it means absolutely nothing?
  
  This is like someone telling you they're cold, and you light a match and hold it between you both. When they ask why you don't use the match to light some of the logs and paper littered around the room for more warmth, you let the match burn out and tell them they should be happy you did something.
  
  Like, wow, they're still cold, the resources are still scattered around the room unused, the "fire" burnt out shortly after it was lit, and now they're not allowed to complain about it either.
I'm guessing you're also a one issue voter.
- Explain to me how you got from point a to point b here.

What worries me is who's gonna buy it

To whom? Who will then fund Chromium? Also, what will happen to Firefox now Google can no longer fund 88% of Mozilla with their bribes?

To whom?

Monkey paw says Oracle

Still better than Meta
- Monkey paw says Oracle
  
  Still better than Meta
  
  I'm not so sure about that one chief. I think they both suck pretty hard.
- Bruh can't they make it ots own company and then sell shares? (Prefarably without a majority shareholder) >!Or be forced to make it a nonprofit but that's too utopian thinking!<
- Don't you put that evil on us.
Why shouldn't they be able to pay apple and mozilla to select google as their default search engine? Will this also be prohibited?
- ~~It's been ruled in court. More details~~
  
  Edit: nope, sorry, thanks to @Mocheeze@lemmy.world for correction
The leading browser on the market? I don't know the price but I suppose any technology company with enough money. Regarding Chromium, it's another matter but I suppose that using it in so many browsers without development will not be
- any technology company with enough money
  
  I know, that's the problem. They are all at least somewhat evil.

Mixed feelings on this.

I'm not entirely sure the internet landscape will change that much with google selling the browser side of their business and might only result in less funding and security for web browsers as a whole.

I say this as a Firefox user, fwiw. I honestly don't think people only use chrome because google products work better on chrome. Frankly, I've never had a problem with a google service on a firefox browser.

Yeah, for all people here complain about every web browser being chrome, the average web browser experience is so much better now than it was when Microsoft controlled the typical web browser.

Google is far from perfect, but the chromium project has resulted in a generally good browser. But I have serious doubts about the future of the chromium project in the hands of Meta or some other tech giant.

cool, now do youtube

there are lots of good articles about this news from other sources.

unfortunately the link in this post is an advertorial for snakeoil: tuta published this for the sole purpose of marketing their non-interoperable encrypted email service which has an incoherent threat model.

There's probably arguments to be made both for and against this ruling. I don't assume this is all good just because I don't like Google.

This post talks a lot about Google's search engine. I'm curious how all the issues that were brought up about the search engine will be improved with the browser being sold off.

Decisions by people who don't understand, advised by people who don't want them to understand, funded by people who are prepared to sacrifice a browser to appear like they're doing something.

why would anyone buy it when it's primary profit-generating activity is driving traffic to google

when its* primary
- Your right.
There's a lot of reasons to own it, one potential profit source being selling what the default search engine is. Just because Google doesn't own it doesn't mean they won't pay to be the default search. They pay a lot for this on Firefox. (Yes, this is being looked into to and may stop, but they can still sell being an option for the default search engine, or other things.)
- Sure but does that outweigh the costs that google was eating while using the browser as a loss leader for search and ads? I doubt they’re going to keep hosting and distributing updates from their CDN for free.
  
  The only people who can afford to own it shouldn’t be able to buy it for the same reasons they’re forcing google to sell it.

They should donate or sell chrome to the Linux Foundation.

Wow. It's actually happening

And just like that another misinformation "news" site was blocked.

This is a tech company blog, not a news website.
- Oh sorry, still crap, though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If they sell the browser how will the buyer afford to continue development? We either get more intrusive ads, tracking, or both.

Inb4:

Breaking news, google sells chrome to Oracle

Breaking news, google sells chrome to Adobe

Breaking news, google sells chrome to Microsoft

Breaking news, google sells chrome to Epic Games

Breaking news, google sells chrome to Tencent

With the amount of money that chrome would sell for, I only see this getting much much worse.

Chromium might get shut down and it becomes closed source.

I guess thats cool but it doesn't solve the lack of alternatives.

I am concerned about government overreach.

But not business monopolies?
- Because this monopoly doesn't directly affect them in a way that's obvious to them; but gummnit baaaad.
Over this?
Very true. If it could happen to Google, it could happen to any one of us.