Technology

58143 readers

4726 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

2447

Youtube has started to artificially slow down video load times if you use Firefox. Spoofing Chrome magically makes this problem go away. (old.reddit.com)

submitted 10 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

425 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 35 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Well you typically need standing in order to file a lawsuit, who would do it? Mozilla are probably the only ones. Why would this cause them to do it when past similar practices haven’t?

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps YouTube premium subscribers would have standing as a class action, since Google is materially worsening the experience of a paid product if you don’t use their browser

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I personally don’t think an argument like that would hold up. A company making its service worse in itself isn’t going to win court cases, and this is hardly the worst example of a tech company making its products worse unless you use more of their software.

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 6 points 10 months ago

Perhaps not, but it’s not just the act of making the service worse, it’s doing so measurably to paying customers ONLY when using a competitors product. With those caveats, I think you could at least argue standing. Winning is a whole other battle.

[–] Dulusa@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

Europe will step in as usual

[–] snazzles@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

How would Mozilla finance a court case against google though?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Microsoft, Mozilla org, maybe apple

EFF or government

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

On what standing though? Mozilla potentially has standing, and if the government finds that google is a monopoly, then the government could have standing, but nobody else.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

Users affected by it, Mozilla, any other company that comes to support Mozilla, watchdog groups like the EFF...

It can also be brought by attorneys general and governmental regulators, the FCC and FTC might have a bit to say about it...

Antitrust suits aren't civil cases, I don't think, so "having standing" is a bit different

I'm not a lawyer though so I could be way off base, but the antitrust cases I've been aware of I don't think they were brought by companies but by government agencies

[–] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Isn't Mozilla a non profit? I don't they can sue for anything along the lines of hurting profits to the company.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago

Can't you sue for loss of income regardless?

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

They do have a for-profit subsidiary that potentially could though

[–] TurdMongler@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Google funds then I'm pretty sure..

[–] skippedtoc@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Of course they can. If the word profit is confusing you replace it with returns or finances.