The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
US regulators’ push to make Google divest its Chrome browser and stop paying to be the default search engine has triggered wide debate over whether this remedy meaningfully addresses Google’s dominance in search and web standards. Commenters question who could fund or profitably operate Chrome without Google’s ad machine, and worry a sale could either weaken browser innovation or hand even more power to another tech giant or shady buyer. Others welcome anything that chips away at the Chromium monoculture and Google’s ability to shape the web against user interests, but note that alternatives like Firefox and Safari have their own funding, privacy, and platform constraints.
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.