Politics

660 readers

7 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit

133

DOJ: Google must sell Chrome, Android could be next (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by pelespirit to c/politics

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The DOJ is asking the court to force Google to promptly and fully divest itself of Chrome, along with any data or other assets required for its continued operation. It is essentially aiming to take the Chrome user base—consisting of some 3.4 billion people—away from Google and hand it to a competitor. The government will vet any potential buyers to ensure the sale does not pose a national security threat. During the term of the judgment, Google would not be allowed to release any new browsers. However, it may continue to contribute to the open source Chromium project.

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

[+] ArbitraryValue -22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Apparently simply being popular is enough to count as a monopoly even when there are multiple other browsers readily available for free? It's extortion, IMO.

(I know that the case is more complicated than that, with the integration of Chrome and Google Search being an issue, but I think my point still stands.)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There are more reasons why Chrome is a monopoly than just Google search being integrated.

Check out how few other browsers aren't just chrome in a trenchcoat, for starters.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago

Hey, there's plenty! There's Safari, and Firefox, and Firefox's 10 radicalized children...

Joking aside, you're right. Safari requires a specific kind of device, so if you're not on an Apple device it's basically just Chrome or Firefox. Edge is Chromium. Brave is Chromium. Opera is Chromium. Vivaldi is Chromium. It's Chrome all the way down.