Which US DOJ proposed action to end Google's search monopoly is most appropriate?

[MichaelCorfman]

Just over a week ago the U.S. Department of Justice unveiled their proposed remedies aimed at dismantling Google's illegal monopoly in search and search advertising.

The proposed remedies are documented by Search Engine Land in the article:

DOJ unveils plan to end Google’s illegal search monopoly

The remedies break down into five categories meant to enable and increase competition:

Distribution remedies: This would mean ending payments that “freeze the ecosystem in place,” including Google’s multi-billion-dollar payments to Apple and Android device makers.

Chrome divestiture: This would separate Chrome from Google – organizationally and financially. Chrome accounts for 35% of all Google search queries and drives “billions in Search revenue” (the actual number is redacted). The DOJ also pointed out that Google “underinvests” in Chrome.

Data remedies: This would require Google to share user-side data, search index coverage, and ad performance data – essential tools that help competitors train models, improve search results, and better compete.

Advertising remedies: This would increase transparency and control for advertisers, while helping rival ad platforms compete more effectively. Specifically, Google would be forced to: a) Provide more information to advertisers in search query reports. b) Let advertisers opt out of broad and automated keyword matching.

Anticircumvention provisions: This would establish a technical committee to monitor Google’s compliance.
This section includes a “contingent Android divestiture.” If competition hasn’t improved within five years, Google could be forced to spin off Android.

For this week's poll I ask which, if any, of these remedies you would most like to see implemented.

Besides voting in the poll, please share your opinion about the appropriateness and benefit of the proposed remedies.

Michael

[universal4]

Tough decision and there will likely be a LOT of opinions, and many will center around what someone "wants" from google.

Kinda against the payment freeze, if apple android or anyone else is owed the money (as per any contracts) they should be paid.

Not sure that divesting chrome would change a whole lot But technologies or features they offer should not give chrome advantages over other browsers in the end, and since most are built on top of the chromium engine not sure they do. (some may have a good debate tjat I am incorrect on this though)

Data Remedies, this is the biggie for me. Google should NOT be giving anyone any data based on user search history, browser history, where they log in, where they spend time etc etc etc. Interesting they recommend advertisers can opt in or out and not a single word about a USER being able to say, don't give anyone anything. (the user opt out now is a false representation of reality, OR they would not have much to share with advertisers would they? )

And as for anticircumvention, feels like whatever direction it ends up going should be a part of it no matter what.

Is it just irony that the only time regular users are thought about or mentioned, is in the debate of how much user data will be given to who, and nothing about protecting user data in any manner at all. The (we have to do this to save the "people"), but then they do not propose anything to help the "people", or make ads shown as a search results transparent to the "people", or protect the data of the "people" they are only trying to help themselves and other interests that just want more.

Rick
Universal4

[xecutable]

Is it really "illegal" if nobody is in jail and/or has been convicted? Also who's gonna have the money to buy Chrome? Apple? Meta? Is that really better, sounds the same to me.

While many of these so called senators have their portfolio in big tech companies like Alphabet, don't expect anything to happen.

And while this whole thing drags out, the average consumer is changing, and the younger generation steps in. Did you know that on some gaming convention, they setup 2 pcs, one with a joystick and one with a keyboard and a mouse, and most of the kids went to the joystick one? And they kicked up a notch the next day, setting 2 pcs with a joystick and brought kids around 4-7 and most of them pushed the joystick aside and tried to touch the screen?

In what like 10 years, Google will most likely be obsolete for what's coming next and a bunch of boomers like us would be using it for w/e reasons. A search engine that couldn't find a ranking factor better than easily bought links for the past 2 decades is not a business and a company I'd focus on.

[wonderpunter]

You should of added all of the above