back
6 comments
For reference, the DOJ's opening proposal (PDF) is here [0], titled "Plaintiff's Proposed Remedy Framework", and I assume this is what the blog-post is in response to.

Of their points, the only one that seems interesting/credible to me the first one on query/data sharing privacy, the rest seem like repeats of how AT&T defended its own monopoly back in the day.

From the DOJ filing:

> [Considering requiring] Google to make available, in whole or through an API, (1) the indexes, data, feeds, and models used for Google search, including those: used in Al-assisted search features, and (2) Google search results, features, and ads, including the underlying ranking signals, especially on mobile.

> [...] Plaintiffs are considering remedies that would prohibit Google from using or retaining data that cannot be effectively shared with others on the basis of privacy concerns.

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25196894-doj-filing-...

The "Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them" claim doesn't add up: DOJ isn't proposing that directly, and no, I don't take it as a given that this is the plan or somehow implied when DOJ cites default search in Chrome as a monopoly practice: there are any number of remedies one can imagine, and DOJ isn't specific about what they intend here. Because of course they aren't.

I'd love to see that, however. The browser is the single most important form of software that exists today. It's more important than operating systems. It's important enough that it would be generally better if people paid for browser licenses from developers that earned their money selling licenses, as opposed to ads.

Is that in scope or a likely outcome of this case? No. Not even close. So I don't expect much from any of this.

Also (9 points, 6 days ago, 7 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41784138
Fox extremely skeptical that henhouse requires guarding.
I'll take that risk.
Cry me a river.