US Department of Justice Proposes Google Sell Off Chrome Browser

The Department of Justice has a list of proposed actions Google must take to end anticompetitive practices, and Google is not happy about it. Apple probably isn't thrilled either. But the matter still has to head to court next year, so nothing is decided just yet. Plus, Microsoft makes some questionable choices and an AI expert leans a bit too hard on AI. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland.
I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and How the
tech are you. It's time for the tech news for
the week ending Friday, November twenty second, twenty twenty four.

(00:28):
This week, the US Department of Justice filed proposals regarding
what to do about Google, and by what to do,
I mean how best to address the issue of Google
absolutely dominating web search, among other things. So this is
like an anti trust lawsuit proceeding, so as expected, the

(00:48):
suggestions the DOJ has are pretty extensive. One really big
one is that the DOJ says Google should stop paying
out gobs of cash to other platforms in order to
make Google Search the default search tool on those platforms.
So Google literally spends billions of dollars every year on

(01:08):
this effort and pays out companies like Apple to use
Google Search as the default on their various platforms, whether
that's iOS or whatever. And the DOJ argues that this
has led to Google essentially squashing competition and entrenching itself
as the dominant web search provider. But the proposal goes
further and says Google should also sell off its Chrome

(01:32):
browser entirely. Google introduced Chrome back in September two thousand
and eight, and since then it has become the most
popular web browser on the market. Stat Counter estimates that
it holds around sixty six percent of the market share
right now. The DOJ says the Google should not be
allowed to release some other browser during the term of judgment,

(01:54):
so not to create a workaround by oh, yeah, we'll
sell off Chrome, we just happen to release a different
browser CO called really highly polished Metal or something like
that would be a no no. Also, if Google doesn't
do what the DOJ says, then the department indicated that
it might come after Android, which is Google's mobile operating system. Well,

(02:15):
Google has of course protested these proposals in these strongest
possible terms, even going so far as to suggest the
changes that the DOJ is demanding would essentially break the
Internet and harm America's standing in the global technology market.
Companies like Apple are probably feeling a little antsy too,
because if the DOJ's proposals do move forward, well, Apple

(02:37):
would be saying bye bye to several billion dollars of
revenue every year, so that would be rough. The DOJ
argues that the payments to companies like Apple also end
up being incentives that Google is paying out. Essentially, Google
is incentivizing companies to not develop competing products on the
market because these companies can make more money just taking

(02:59):
money from Google and using Google's tool than they would
if they develop their own product individually. These proposals are
just proposals right now. These are not rules that Google
is going to have to immediately abide by. In fact,
this is something that will be brought before a judge
in the United States later in twenty twenty five, possibly
in the second half of twenty twenty five. So we're

(03:21):
far from a point where Google is facing actual consequences
just yet. And seeing where the US elections went this
past year, I would be shocked if the government continues
to take such a strong stance against corporations and anti
competitive practices moving forward. Generally speaking, Donald Trump has shown
to be very friendly toward corporations and less concerned about

(03:45):
things like, you know, anti competitive behaviors, so it would
really surprise me if we see continued movement on those fronts.
But that being said, the Trump administration also has its
own acts to grind against Google for perceived bias, not
saying there's actual bias, but there's definitely they perceive a

(04:05):
bias and have since identified Google as like an enemy
of the people by presenting search results that conservatives sometimes
argue are purposefully biased against them. And so it could
be possible that we'll still see government action brought against Google,
but it will be driven more by retribution than by

(04:27):
a desire to break up a trust, which is kind
of a weird place to be. Bahima abdel Rahman and
Joe Teddy have an article on BBC World Service. It
was in Arabic and so I had to rely upon
a translate feature, so hopefully everything that I read was
accurately translated. That can always be tricky, but it revealed

(04:48):
some pretty disturbing information about verified users on X, some
verified users a small selection, and of course X is
the service formerly known as Twitter. So the reporters say
that a BBC investigation found verified users on X who
were sharing links to sites that traffic in images and
videos of child sexual abuse material or CEESAM. The reporters

(05:12):
state that once they alerted X to these accounts, in question.
The service did ban those accounts, but questions remain about
the actual verification process, because one would hope that if
you're providing a check like a verified check, and if
you're allowing verified accounts to have a much larger reach

(05:33):
than standard accounts, you would also have a process that
would include some sort of vetting to make sure that
those accounts in question aren't violating the law. The BBC
reported that at least one verified account had been posting
links to illegal material for at least six months without
any intervention on behalf of x The investigators found the

(05:54):
accounts by searching for a few keywords in quote unquote
Arabic dialect. These words have been used as a sort
of code among se Sam traffickers as a means of
finding one another without directly raising suspicion. According to the BBC,
the verified accounts didn't have very many followers, but because
those accounts were verified, their posts actually had a really

(06:15):
broad reach and thousands of people saw these posts. So
while there weren't a lot of followers for the individual accounts,
they still had a pretty big impact. And obviously the
story is absolutely horrifying, and in my opinion, it also
puts a spotlight on how X's approach to verification, where
it becomes just a simple paid option, is far inferior

(06:36):
to the way it worked in the old Twitter days.
But I guess I should stop beating that drum and
just accept that X is, in my opinion, totally inferior
to what Twitter used to be. Smritty Malapti and my
apologies for Armalapati. I suppose I'm mispronouncing this name terribly anyway.

(06:59):
A reporter for Nature has an article that's titled a
Place of Joy Why scientists are joining the rush to
Blue Sky. Now, if you recall, blue Sky is an
alternative to x, slash, Twitter or Meta's threads, it's closer
to mast it on. It's like the federated version of
these services, which means that it's housed on multiple servers

(07:21):
that connect to one another, but it's not centralized the
way Twitter was or is. Blue Sky itself started as
a project within Twitter. Jack Dorsey was behind the initial creation,
although he is no longer involved with the company. So
why are scientists migrating to blue Sky? Well, according to
the article, it's for several reasons. One, there's more control

(07:42):
over what you see on Blue Sky, You're more likely
to see messages posted by people and accounts you actively follow,
rather than stuff that some algorithm is just shoving at
you for whatever reason, For example, prioritizing posts from folks
who paid to be verified over other stuff that you
actually want to see. Moderation has taken far more seriously
at blue Sky. If you block someone on blue Sky,

(08:04):
it is a real block. It's not the way it
is over on X. People who are blocked from you
on X can still see what you post, which is wild,
and it sounds like their reasons for leaving X are
pretty similar to my own reasons when I left X
a couple of years ago. If you still have an
account on X, I'm not throwing any shade at you.
I mean, lots of people have accounts for lots of reasons.

(08:25):
But it just became clear that X is not the
right place for me, and I think for a lot
of other folks they're coming to a similar conclusion. Sticking
with Blue Sky, Jonathan Vanian of CNBC has an article
in which Blue Sky's CEO Jay Graber has explained that
Blue Sky is quote unquote billionaire proof, meaning that Blue
Sky couldn't be bought and repurposed the way Elon Musk

(08:47):
bought and transformed Twitter. Blue Sky's design is based on
an open source approach with federated service as I mentioned,
so even if someone were buying up blue Sky servers,
you could create a new one and port your server
over to that one and maintain all your previous connections
with those whom you follow and those who follow you.
And Blue Sky's approach appears to be resonating with lots

(09:09):
of people. The service has seen millions of people sign
up in the wake of the US elections. It now
has more than twenty one million registered users, but that
is still minuscule compared to a service like Twitter. Twitter
has reported having hundreds of millions of monthly users. So
let's keep everything in perspective. Okay, we've gotten more news
to get through. Before we get to that, let's take

(09:31):
a quick break. We're back. The US Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau or CFPB issued rules that will group large digital
payment providers under the Bureau's regulations. So this is only

(09:52):
going to apply to digital payment apps that handle more
than fifty million transactions a year. That covers heavy hitters
like Google Wallet and Apple Pay that kind of thing. Initially,
the CFPB was planning on a much more comprehensive list
that would include apps that handle five million transactions or
more per year, but it switched to this, so these

(10:14):
services are now going to be subjected to regulations the
same way that banks and credit unions are here in
the United States. The CFPB issued a statement saying that
the rules mean that consumers are going to receive more
protection as a result, including against actions like illegal account closures,
just meaning that if these digital payment systems do certain

(10:35):
acts that are questionable or illegal, the CFPB has the
authority to regulate that and to punish a company for
doing those kinds of things, and that this was just
to establish that they do have to follow these rules.
There's some rough news for gamers as we head into
the holidays. Nvidia announced that it is facing a potential

(10:57):
gaming GPU shortage this quarter. This is a into an
article by Hassam Nasir of Tom's Hardware. Nasir reports that
during the most recent Nvidia earnings call to shareholders that
chief financial Officer Collette Kress revealed a possible squeeze in
GPU supplies, one that would likely be addressed early next year,
and this could mean that finding graphics cards in the

(11:19):
short term the holiday season, particularly graphics cards that are
not exorbitantly expensive, might be a little tricky. Nasir writes
that one possible reason for this shortage could actually be
in Vidia's plan to launch a new series of cards,
a new generation of GPUs called Blackwell, and this will
happen in January of next year, So the reduction in

(11:41):
supply could partly be due to Nvidia wanting to set
the stage for a huge launch with a new generation
of cards next year. And I know it's a lot
easier to sell a bunch of new cards if there
aren't a bunch of previous generation cards on sale for
a lower price on the market already. Tom Warren of
The Verge has an article explaining how Microsoft appears to
be urging Windows ten owners to upgrade to a new

(12:03):
computer in order to migrate to Windows eleven and to
take advantage of copilot features. Warren reports that some Windows
ten users are encountering full screen pop ups that not
only point out that Microsoft will be ending support for
Windows ten in October next year, but also that it
might be time to get a new machine because as
Warren points out the messaging is suggesting, you know, well,

(12:26):
you need a new computer to run Windows eleven because
Windows eleven has system requirements that a lot of older
computers just don't meet. But Warren also points out the
messaging could be considered a little misleading because Microsoft will
continue to provide limited ongoing support for Windows ten. However,
you will have to pay thirty dollars a year to
get those extra updates. But yeah, I don't know how

(12:48):
I would feel if I were working on my computer
and I just got a message that completely took up
the entire screen that essentially is saying, Hey, I know
stuff's real expensive right now, and you probably have a
lot of other things on your mind, but you should
really get a new computer. That would really cheese me off. Obviously,
the actual messages don't say that. I am liberally paraphrasing

(13:09):
and interpreting here and switching over to Alfonso Maruccia of
techt Spot, let's talk about another article that details a
move by Microsoft that is rubbing people the wrong way.
That article is called the Official Bing Wallpaper app does
some nasty malware like things to Windows. Yikes. So here's
the deal. The app is meant to let users swap

(13:30):
out their desktop wallpaper on their computers in a really
easy and seamless way. Only it seems to do stuff
that's not at all related to displaying wallpapers, you know,
stuff like decrypting cookies, including cookies saved in browsers other
than Microsoft Edge, like Chrome or Firefox. It also apparently
incorporates some sort of geolocation features and installs bing visual

(13:53):
search on the computer, as well as prompts users to
make Edge their default browser and install some sneaky browser
extensions and competing browsers of Chrome and Firefox. So it
certainly sounds like the Being Wallpaper app is drastically overstepping
itself here. I'm reminded of Sony and DRM, where Sony
inadvertently created malware with its digital rights management approach. That

(14:18):
sounds kind of like what we're talking about here, But
I have no idea what the intent was, but it
definitely doesn't doesn't sound like it was a good move
on in my opinion. Maxwell Zef of tech Crunch reports
that Apple is apparently developing an updated version of Siri
that will lean heavily on the large language model approach
to AI. This means that Siri would ideally become more conversational.

(14:43):
Presumably this will make it possible to use Siri to
interact with apps in a deeper, more complex way, but
it is going to take some time. Zef says. The
plan is for Apple to release this new version of
Siri in the spring of twenty twenty six. In the
do As I Say and Not As I Do category,
our next story is about generative AI and why you

(15:03):
should not rely on it, especially for important stuff like say,
filing expert testimony in a lawsuit that is aimed to
take on generative AI. All right, so not really generative AI.
Deep fakes. It's related, but not the same thing. So
in Minnesota, there is a state law that makes it
illegal to knowingly disseminate deep fakes up to ninety days

(15:27):
before an election if the material in that deep fake
video was made with an intent to influence the election,
and if the subject of the deep fake video did
not consent to being in it. Christopher Coles has challenged
this law, filing a lawsuit that argues this violates the
First Amendment the Freedom of speech in the US Constitution.

(15:49):
The state Minnesota has tapped the director of Stanford University's
Social Media Lab a guy named Jeff Hancock to provide
expert testimony regarding the dangers of deep fake technology. So
Hancock did, but apparently the testimony he submitted contains hints
that he himself relied on Generative AI in order to
write it, which is a big old whoopsie. Hancock's testimony

(16:11):
cites a study that doesn't appear to actually exist, which
suggests it is an AI hallucination. Now, some of y'all
might remember that several months ago I did an episode
of Tech Stuff that was quote unquote written by Generative AI,
and one of the things I found really upsetting when
I did this was that the AI invented experts in

(16:31):
order to present certain information as having academic validity, like
it was presenting a point of view, and then inventing
a person to have apparently given that point of view.
But those experts, as far as I can determine, were
not real people at all. So the same sort of
thing appears to have happened here in this case with
the expert testimony, and at the very least that is embarrassing. Now,

(16:53):
for the record, I do think deep fakes are incredibly
dangerous and that regulation is needed. I understand the First
Amendment argument, but if I can create a video that
appears to show you proclaiming beliefs that you absolutely do
not hold, or that shows you admitting to a crime
that you did not commit, or your calling for action

(17:15):
that you would never actually agree to, all of that
is a problem. Right, Like, if I create something that
makes it seem like you, like it's coming from you
and you are the ones saying these things, that's not really,
in my opinion, a First Amendment thing, because the First
Amendment covers my freedom of expression. But if I'm using
deep fakes, it appears that I am co opting your

(17:35):
freedom of expression to say whatever it is I want
you to say. At least that's my opinion. I'm not
an expert. I am not a legal expert by any means,
but yeah, I think the law actually has merit in
this case. But I guess that's a matter for the
courts to decide. And of course it kind of stinks.
I mean, it really stinks that the expert witness apparently

(17:58):
used generative AI to create their testimony, because it really
undermines their credibility and I think hurts the state's case,
and I don't want to see this go the other way.
One last story page, Gaully of Vice dot Com has
a piece titled AI Jesus is now taking confessions at
a church in Switzerland. That headline, I think is a

(18:19):
tad bit misleading. The AI Jesus is not meant to
take confession at least, it's not meant to perform the
sacrament of confession. So instead, this AI power generative tool
is meant to communicate in a way that's aligned with
at least depictions of Jesus. I don't know which depiction

(18:39):
of Jesus, like I don't know which interpretation of the
Bible was used to create this particular AI chatbot. But
church attendees can go into a confessional booth and have
a conversation with an AI chatbot that's meant to emulate Jesus,
and they receive answers to their questions that are meant
to engage their spiritual wary thoughts and questions and things

(19:02):
like that, And it sounds like lots of people find
the experience actually pretty enlightening, but others have dismissed it
as just a gimmick. It actually reminds me a lot
of early chat thoughts, because those were programmed to mimic
specific kinds of social interactions, like talking to a psychoanalyst,
for example. So this doesn't exactly surprise me. But again,

(19:23):
this isn't to say that there's some sort of robopowered,
coin operated confessional booth or something. We haven't gotten to
that point. We're not quite at Futurama levels of absurdity
just yet. But you know, give it a year, we'll
see where we end up. That's it for the tech
News for this week, the week ending November twenty second,
twenty twenty four. I hope all of you out there

(19:43):
are doing well, and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.