Technology

59311 readers

5315 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

1032

Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

169 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine::Google accused DOJ of aiming to force people to use “inferior” search products.

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

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 114 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

What did he actually say?!

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I think its also important to note, he was not explicitly unclear about what Firefox was, he was unclear about what Mozilla was. It's admittedly still not great, but I think it's a little more understandable a thing to be unfamiliar with than the browser itself. I'd really rather the title referred to Mozilla because of this, as really there's little to definitively back up its claim that the judge is unfamiliar with Firefox, just that he is to some degree unfamiliar with the company that makes it. Again, still far from ideal, but not nearly as egregious as they're trying to make it sound.

load more comments (1 replies)