• errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    And Mozilla is largely funded by Google. We all just hope they don’t pull the rug from them but I have no faith that our inept, slow government would stop that from happening before it’s too late.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Almost certainly the entire reason Google is funding Mozilla is to try and stave off antitrust lawsuits.

      • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The official reason is so that Big G is the default search engine on every install.

        But that may very well just be a smokescreen.

      • 50MYT@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yep.

        Google will spend more on a legal team working out how to prevent the lawsuits in the first place than they would be giving to Mozilla

      • Waffelson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think this reason is stupid. Why can’t there be a duopoly in the browser market like in the phone market? Even if there is no firefox, there will still be safari on its own engine

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think the phone market should also be broken up.

          The reason a doupoly is bad in any market is that it’s essentially next to no choice for the consumer, and the businesses can force changes to the market that are anti-consumer with little reprocussion. In any given market the minimum number of legitimate competitors necessary for meaningful competition will be different, but even three is too few in the web browser game, especially when the market shares look like this.