Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Eric Eggert (yatil@yatil.social)'s status on Thursday, 24-Apr-2025 19:11:29 JST Eric Eggert

   Me, 4 years ago: “Breaking Safari which has no monopoly over the web is a bad idea, because it is the only remaining counter-weight to Google which literally controls most people’s browser, email, online documents storage, and phones.”

   OWA: “LOL yeah, but Safari will get more investment because competition! Also there cannot be any side effects!”

   (Competing browser engines have been possible on iOS in the EU for over a year now, there are zero.) (1/3)

   • GreenSkyOverMe (Monika) repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric Eggert (yatil@yatil.social)'s status on Thursday, 24-Apr-2025 19:11:40 JST Eric Eggert

     in reply to

     OWA, now: “Oh, no, breaking Google’s monopoly can have side effects on other browsers! And the open web.”

     Not seeing the monopoly building objectively and finding a holistic solution has broken the web. This was clear when OWA lobbied against Safari, and now they are trying to counterweight the damage that is done. Focusing on browsers instead of ecosystems was always deemed to fail. Divorcing Google from Chrome would have needed to be the first step, not an afterthought. (2/3)

     GreenSkyOverMe (Monika) repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eric Eggert (yatil@yatil.social)'s status on Thursday, 24-Apr-2025 19:11:48 JST Eric Eggert

     in reply to

     And, honestly, just putting Chrome in an alternative Alphabet bucket will do squat. It would need to be its own foundation with mandatory payments from Chromium browser manufacturers.

     https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/break-googles-search-monopoly-without-breaking-the-web/ (3/3)