/tech/ - Technology

I doubt the whores in the DOJ will ever break up any sort of monopoly in this day and age, but a possible outcome that intrigues me is that Google could be forced to stop funding Mozilla through search engine deals. Either Mozilla would no longer be controlled opposition and be forced to pursue their original mission again, or they'll die immediately without being propped up by Google money. Either would be good, because if the latter happened Google would become such an undeniable monopoly in the browser market that regulators would be forced to intervene.

>>13160
Even if they did break up google the damage is done at this point. Those spinless vaginas let google run around for decades pulling their bullshit letting them force everyone to use their shitty browser on their shitty smart phones.

>>13159
If you want to fix the web, you need to add automatic back-links to the html protocol. Meaning that if somebody links to a website, that website will add a back-link to a list at the bottom of the site. That way the web becomes "traversable by foot" or explorable. This would make it possible to stumble across content that you can't find with web-search anymore. Web-search got ruined by Search-Engine-Optimization (SEO) gaming the system. I don't know if breaking google's strangle-hold on search would fix this. It might be harder to do SEO if there's multiple big search providers, but i'm not sure.

What google did wrong, was the way they did advertisements. They profile people and than try to shove ads in their faces that are relevant to that person. But that is completely backwards, because it usually means displaying information that is not related to the content in the web-page.

If somebody tries to read a webpage about dinosaurs, everything not related to dinosaurs means interrupting the mental flow. It feels like a asinine rude person yelling at you to break your concentration while you are trying to read something. That's the reason why add-blocking has turned into a holy mission. https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=N-MMYihUwyI

Advertisement systems should analyze the content of a web-page and then display adds relevant to the content. That way adds would not be rude mental intrusions, and more people would accept it. It also means that there is no reason to run client-side scripts to profile people, which means that the privacy and security problems in online-advertisement go away too.

Google is also fucking with browser standards, those should be neutral, but big G is putting the thumb on the scale. For example, they try to bully everybody to use the webp picture format, instead of the much better jpegxl, or recently they have begun screwing with browser extension support.

I don't know the politics behind this development, will we get neutral browser standards, content-aware adds instead of user-profile adds, and perhaps back-links to bypass SEO-shitfuckery ?

Big update: the DOJ is going to ask the judge in this case to force Google to sell off Chrome

https://archive.is/bBDQt

Who will be the lucky new owner of the web?

>>13314
Honestly don't really know.
But does that mean Chrome gets the Manifest V2 extension engine back ?
You know the good one. Not the V3 that got borked.

The way things are looking, it seems like Google has about nine to twelve months left to a final set of "web standards" down everyone's throats that can help them maintain control after divesting from Chrome. What do you think they might try to slip past us? We had better stay vigilant.

>>13314
M$ would be the amusing outcome.
In reality, some company nobody has heard of, that certainly has zero ties with Google, and which conveniently decides to collaborate with Google to continue developing Chromium.

>>13320
Online advertisement is broken for a fundamental reason. It's inverted the intended logic of consumer-markets. Which is the customer chooses which product to buy. Online Advertisement is about letting the product(technically the seller) choose its customer.

This inversion has existed in all advertisement long before the internet, but it mostly didn't work with old-school media because those couldn't nail down individual people.

Google and most other online ad business' that operates by tracking people, is driving people to adblocking because they want to be the ones that choose. Forcing the issue by messing the browser will not counteract the online ad-revenue decline.

They have to change their advertisement system from scanning people to scanning the context. Want to display an add on a webpage, read/analyze the page and display an add that's related to the content of that page. That doesn't need any people tracking and it returns choice to consumers.

To answer your question, i don't think that they can do anything that can't be changed or reverted later, because it's software.

>>13321
I've wondered about such a scheme also, but i do wonder how much controle they would be able to exert once there's those extra steps.