An advertising company should not be allowed to abuse its monopoly on the most-used* browser. It's a pure and simple conflict of interest, as illustrated by its attempts to cripple ad-blocking extensions. At the very least, it should have to be kept at arms length from the core ad-slinging/user-milking aspects of the business.

*Note that I intentionally don't say "most popular" or "favourite". A very large fraction of those using it probably don't even really know what a "browser" is: the various strong-arm tactics** that Google has used to achieve such dominance are a fundamental part of the problem.

**I also note the almost amusing situation of Microsoft trying to do the same very heavily for Edge and Bing, but failing miserably.

Who the heck is there who would want to buy chrome, could afford to buy it, and would be a good custodian of it?

Certainly not Microsoft...

As regards being able to afford it - it would be a forced sale which makes a big difference to Google's ability to set a price. But let's go one step further, make it open source overseen by a foundation.

That sounds brilliant - it would be great if the foundation could have a website at a snappy URL, something like chromium.org, for example.

Or exactly like chromium.org?

> An advertising company

Sigh. I remember when Google was a search engine company. I feel so old.

I remember when HotBot (pre-Lycos) was my search engine of choice and Google was just a silly word. I still miss it. Mainly because it actually gave me what I was looking for, and if what I was looking for didn't exist, it would say as much rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead.

> and if what I was looking for didn't exist, it would say as much rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead.

And if what I was looking for DOES exist, it would say as much (in the first results) rather than giving me what it thinks I might have wanted instead (for page after page before reluctantly indicating the right answer).

Similar deal with AltaVista (pre-Yahoo). But that was also an era before spamdexing and other search engine manipulation techniques became common.

It's already my choice. I choose to use Chrome and I choose to use Google.com to search.

I understand the risks involved. I simply prefer the convenience.

I am sensible with what I share online. Google can have at my data. I'm far too tight with my money to ever purchase from any crappy add the is "tailored" to my requirements.

your 'data' is not that which you believe it to be, Google take EVERYTHING they can, and use the computer to do what computers do best, they crunch the numbers to find connections, and THIS is what they use to make their money :o(

so, in short, but not exhaustive, they will have your IP, times you were active, duration of times you were active, IP's of sites you visited / passed through, details of any interaction on any of these sites, again, duration and times of said interactions, they do not need any actual details of where / when / what you were doing, they will be able to build a map of your actions that is just as useful to them and way more insightful than anything you may have thought of

remember, the first wave of PC's were used to create better PC's :o(

and 'they' have gotten pretty good at it by now

"so, in short, but not exhaustive......" ....And? I'm waiting for the end of your fable. Who dies? What actually happens that's bad? What material harm will come to Me.I.Am as a result of the apparently apolcalyptic events you describe in your post? Fuck all, I suspect.

I've got Noscript and Adblock and UBlock and cookie consent add-ons up to my ears but more and more, recently, as more sites don't load and more payments fail and more videos don't run I'm heading towards not bothering and just blocking ads and annoyances like pop-out videos. I'm going to cycle to the pub tomorrow night without a helmet, on icy roads and then cycle home in the early hours of Saturday morning on icier roads after 8 pints and a couple of whiskies. That would be considered dangerous by many, but Google knowing my IP address isn't.

Who dies? What actually happens that's bad?

Ever wonder how the USA's "democracy" managed to elect a convicted criminal, with known unpleasant attitudes and a liking for Russian money, to be President?

Data on people on a massive scale can be used to manipulate the people via targetted advertising and messaging: leading to a break-down in truth, trust, and hence democracy. See also: Brexit.

Including some thing you might not expect ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08072-x

You will continue to have the choice to use Google Chrome in the same way that other people today have the choice not to: theoretically.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is an ideal solution or that it will lead to a new dawn of browser development. It's just that your satisfaction with the limited choice available to you is outweighed by the market dominance that accompanies it. Your choice presupposes a cost to other people that they have no current choice but to accept.

Tricky business, free will (and the illusion thereof).

>>I understand the risks involved

You are an exception, as is most of the people who frequent these forums. This is not an accurate representation of how the average person uses internet.

>>I am sensible with what I share online

You are doubly an exception here. I commend you for that. The problem is that the vast majority of internet users don't even know that there are risks associated to what they share, much less that there are options beyond Google. For them. one day the blue e stopped being "the internet" and instead the colorful circle became that.

Alphabet has a virtual monopoly over the way people access the internet. This goes beyond the information they may have about any individual, and this kind of monopolies are never healthy.

NB: I am not one of the downvoters.

The proposal also states that publishers should be able to opt out in of to AI overviews without fear of retaliation .

There, fixed that for them.

Why is the onus on everybody else to track the latest greatest AI bot and find out how to connect to it to opt out , likely after it has already snarfed everything in sight...

Is that a legitimate remit of any Department of Justice .... to slice and dice and break up a successful intelligence and business enterprise with orders that favour and reward inferior competition in opposition unable to attract and foster similarly rewarding operations?

The remit of any DoJ should be to safeguard the public interest. If that's what safeguarding the public interest requires then, yes, it's in their remit.

"If those go away, there will be blood – not just for Google but also for Apple and Mozilla."

No, Google has plenty of other stuff. A slight dent.

Down the back of sofa money for Apple. They won't care.

Yes, a problem for already dying Mozilla, who have worked hard to wreck Firefox and Thunderbird GUIs, and are now by default breaking privacy too (though you can turn it off). Mozillla needs reformed badly.

A simple sale to some faceless offshore consortium for $1 who then lease it back to Alphabet.

Same shit but even shittier.

Chrome is simply a means for Google to collect your data and serve you ads that make them money.

Who would pay for Chrome without a way to generate revenue from it?

Well my worry is that someone like Zuckerberg or Musk would end up buying Chrome and making it an even worse privacy nightmare than it already is.

But with a new administration due to take office in a couple of months with a lot of very dodgy appointees in high positions and with America now electing a convicted criminal who has shown time and time again that he can be persuaded by money, then im sure Google will be able to grease enough palms to make all this go away at least for another 4 years.

If they did compete you know that Apple would lock all iDevices into their own search engine and behave exactly as Google has.. Why not a ruling that affects the MARKET not just the dominant player so it stops anyone pulling this shit in future.