• Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    214
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Doesn’t this break competition laws?
    Couldn’t Google/YouTube be sued over this?

    • umbraroze@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      154
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Microsoft got repeatedly hit over this kind of shenanigans in MSIE during and after the anti-trust lawsuit.

      Sadly, that was 20 years ago. I’m not having much faith in American justice system doing anything about this nowadays.

      • Sendbeer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They really weren’t that effective with Microsoft then either. The antitrust was far too late for Netscape and allowed Microsoft to hold a dominate market share with IE until they allowed the browser to deprecate and Google came in with a much better browser and took over the browser market (and are now doing the same bullshit).

        As long as we keep giving these companies meaningless fines or wait until the damage is irreversible companies are going to always push the limit and look at any repercussions as just a cost of doing business.

        So yeah, not much faith in anything changing.

        • SapphironZA@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is why I am in favour of the financial death penalty. Fines should be 10x the damage done. If a company cannot pay it, they are required to become a non profit.

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fines should be 10x the damage done

            What are your monetary damages for this?

          • Instigate@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think a better solution is one year of global revenue (not profit) as it’s really hard to determine damages in cases like this. That way, it’s legitimately a death sentence regardless of the size or scale of the company. If you set the fines at an amount not linked to profit or revenue, all you’re doing is making it extremely hard for the little guy but less hard for the big corporations - the ones you really want to go after.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah stuff like this really needs to be percentual and fined to the CEOs and the board, not the company as an entity.

          Oh, Microsoft valued at 200 bil for shareholders? Well sorry C’s and boardies, you gotta scrunge up 2 bil each now, personally. Those are fines they’d at least notice.

          (edit)
          Come to think of it, the fined-personally-to-the-decisionmaker might really be the big thing here on its own. The company did this shit under you, CEO. It was your corporate policy and hiring practices that allowed this to happen, even if you did not press the button. You pay up. You take the blame, not the people under you just following orders.

          • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This just ignores the reason that corporations exist in the first place, to shield people from personal liability. There is a mechanism by which you can go after that called “piercing the corporate veil” but it is an extremely high bar to hit.

            • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              the reason that corporations exist in the first place, to shield people from personal liability

              Which is the problem. As parent rightly pointed out, lack of personal liability is exactly why corporations pull this kind of bullshit. The solution is to lower the bar for holding individuals, particularly executives, personally responsible for the actions of the organizations they control.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should look into all of the anti-monopoly actions that Lina Khan has been pursuing as head of the FTC. Under her tenure the watchdogs have had more teeth than ever before. It takes time for this stuff to make a difference, but they are most decidedly doing the work (Cory Doctorow has some excellent write ups on this if you check his blog).

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          He lionizes her a bit much, but yes she has done far more than her predecessor.

      • LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Society is being conditioned to accept worse and worse behavior… Not from people, but from major near-monopolies.

        The tinfoil hat people have never been so close, yet so far.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Microsoft got repeatedly hit over this kind of shenanigans in MSIE during and after the anti-trust lawsuit.

        And all they had to do was drag the trial out until a favorable administration took office.

        • locuester@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well they also dragged out the trial so long that time and costs rendered the plaintiff (Netscape) hopeless.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        malicious slowdowns like this are why microsoft abandoned (non chrome) edge, too. Cause they couldnt keep up with fixing the constant fuckery google was doing, and users are idiots and blamed edge for all the problems.

        • Sendbeer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Microsoft was kind of getting their comeuppance there. They did the exact same billshit when they dominated the market with IE.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not in the U.S. Not as long as conservatives (incl. neo-liberals) have the power to protect them.

      Our conservative politicians are bought and paid for by large anti-competitive corporations.

        • mycatiskai@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are bribed for so little that it would be almost easier to make a dystopian sounding PAC with money raised by small dollar donations to bribe them to do what the people want instead of them doing what rich donors want.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait for it to become equally shitty in all browsers, and then you can only watch in a special Youtube Windows app.