Technology

59534 readers

3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1250

US Court Rules Google a Monopoly in 'Biggest Antitrust Case of the 21st Century'. (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

222 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Voice Of America: Google loses massive antitrust case over its search dominance.

The Conversation: A US Court has ruled Google is an illegal monopoly – and the internet might never be the same.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In a healthy market new browsers need to be able to enter.. but browsers are so complex from the reckless, endless feature creep that creating a new browser securely (or at all) is unreasonable. (Luckily they are open source and can be forked but the changes are minor compared to the base. A Chromium fork is still Chromium at the end of the day).

Supporting the ad-driven internet is contrary to what is wanted by many users of Firefox/flavors and there is no alternative. It was said that they would destroy the Sith, not join them.

[–] dan@upvote.au 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Supporting the ad-driven internet

The thing is that there's not really a good alternative. There's real costs in running a service - servers, bandwidth, staff, etc. Either you pay for content directly (subscription services), someone else pays for you (which is the case with many Lemmy servers where admins are paying out of their own pockets), or ads cover the cost for you. People want to use the web for free, so ad-supported content is going to be around for a long time.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would rather pay for works directly, so I prefer a browser with no ads ever.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, that makes sense. A lot of people can't afford that though, especially in poorer countries.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

But then advertising to them is less lucrative too.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I disliked adverts so much as a time waster of limited human life. There may not be a good alternative to dumping toxic waste into a river, for example, but I still think we shouldn't do it.

Can't speak for others but I do donate (not as much as I'd like) to Wikipedia and buy merch from some creators (if I like it for what it is).