The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

Browser choice, ad blocking, and user sentiment

• Many commenters welcome anything that weakens Google’s control, especially after Manifest V3 degraded uBlock Origin; others note you can still use uBlock Lite or switch to Firefox, Safari+Wipr, Brave, Vivaldi, etc.
• Some argue the key reason to use Firefox isn’t “Mozilla good” but “reduce Chromium monoculture,” even if Mozilla’s own data and policy moves are distrusted.
• Others report Firefox or Safari being perfectly capable (and sometimes superior), while a vocal minority say Firefox is sluggish or breaks sites, often because sites only test against Chrome.
• On iOS, Safari’s engine lock and weak extension ecosystem are seen as big constraints; Apple’s defaults and search deals with Google are repeatedly mentioned.

Chromium, standards power, and monopoly concerns

• A central worry is Google’s control over Chromium and web standards (Manifest V3, Web Integrity, Topics API, various device APIs), making its choices de facto web norms due to market share.
• Forking Chromium is seen as technically possible but economically unrealistic at scale; divergence from upstream quickly becomes unmaintainable.
• Some note that web complexity itself (modern browsers ≈ OS-level complexity) creates a structural barrier that only Google and Apple can afford, entrenching their power.

DOJ remedy: sell Chrome – good idea or not?

• Supporters say: Chrome is a loss‑leader used to reinforce Google’s search/ads monopoly and surveil users; separating it (possibly into a foundation or “public utility”) could slow harmful changes and revive competition.
• Critics say: Chrome as a standalone business is barely monetizable without surveillance or heavy ad insertion; forcing a sale either kills it, pushes it into private‑equity/Big Tech hands, or leads to worse enshittification.
• There’s confusion over what exactly must be divested (Chrome vs Chromium vs search defaults), and whether Google could just launch a “Ghrome 2.0” absent tight restrictions.

Firefox/Mozilla and search-default payments

• A separate DOJ proposal to ban Google’s “default search” payments alarms people who see Firefox as dependent on that ~$500M/year.
• Some think Mozilla has a warchest and time to pivot (donations, new products, other search partners); others argue management squandered years of Google money without building sustainable revenue.

Comparisons, politics, and geopolitics

• Many ask why Apple’s iOS App Store and Safari engine lock‑in aren’t targeted first; others reply that multiple antitrust cases against Apple already exist.
• Some frame the breakup in national‑security or “US vs China tech” terms; others counter that monopolies harm innovation and consumers regardless of flag.