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.
When asked about a perceived ignorance in computers, the judge proclaimed, “I’m not ignorant about computers! In fact, just last week I finished Space Quest, and I’m now getting through Leisure Suit Larry!” The judge’s report, written using WordPerfect 5.1, is expected to be released soon.
I’ll have you know that I just recently had a user incredibly upset because their word perfect files did not automatically identify as word documents.
I think the automotive analogy is relevant, some think using technology means they understand it. I’m a pretty good driver, but it would be unwise to ask me to repair your car’s transmission. My grandmother spends more time on her computer glued to Facebook than I spend using my computer on a given day, but I’m not asking her to build my next gaming rig.
The judge in question is 51 years old. He’s not old enough to be this clueless about basics like the difference between a search engine and a web browser and popular examples of each.
Kids often don’t know the difference between “wifi” and the Internet. It’s not an age thing these days.
Since smartphone became a thing it has always been my theory that millenials, and up to a point GenX, would be the only two generations to be forced into being tech-savy. Boomers and GenZ have been overwhelmingly tablet and phone users. Whoever still logging on a PC nowadays will have a vastly different experience than what it used to be.
It is a different world really. I am a huge geek and I have been in tech for a long time now, but I still get confused look at family gathering when I tell them I have no idea how to fix someone’s Ipad or what app/settings/touch gesture to do whatever.
Kids often aren’t explained the difference and if they have been they just don’t understand, wifi IS the internet to them.
A 51 year old Judge has a vastly different brain and should be able to retain the difference when explained.
You’d think they’d notice they can use the internet from their phones when there’s no wifi.
Pretty sure they call cellular data “wifi”.
Only a few years older than me. Absolutely not yet old enough to be a boomer.
Lawmakers and judges should not be allowed to make decisions on something they know nothing about. This is a huge problem with people not even wanting to educate themselves, and then deciding how the rest of us get to interact with the internet.
That being said, Firefox is only popular with tech folk. They have just over a 3% market share. I’m a developer and I don’t know anyone but myself that uses it. My mother would think I was talking about a cartoon if I brought it up. A lot of lemmings use it, but o would not call it a popular example.
Experts are supposed to break it down to them. But yeah, this is a flawed system but I fear the honnest take is that most humans know nothing about most things (even if we’re tempted to believe otherwise), so you’d be running out of avalaible judges real quick.
That’s a fair point. This case is even more complicated, as either the author of the article doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or a word was missing. The article says the judge wasn’t sure if mozilla was a browser or search engine, and Mozilla is neither.
I still hate the confidently incorrect assertions people in charge are making to negatively impact the way the largest and most complete telecommunications and information system works. Just look at facebooks trial where zuck had to explain how the internet works to the people who were deciding if his company was doing something wrong.
Why do they call it Firefox only once in the title but Mozilla in the article? And why do they refer to “Meta” as “Mehta”?
Mehta is the name of the judge.
Oh well, that clears some things up. Sorry, not a native speaker.
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?!
It would be naive to expect Google to be broken by anti-trust laws, just look how microsoft dodged that in the 2000 and went back to the same practices today . this is a circus show
When you have technical cases like this, a good expert witness can explain everything like the judge is five. I like to consider myself tech literate enough to know the basics.
This is about how Google used technology (algorithms) and it’s buying power to cement it’s monopoly.
From the DoJ’s pre-trial brief.
First, Google designed its ad auction algorithms to include adjustable variables (internally known as “pricing knobs”);…Google has also reduced advertisers’ visibility into where and why Google displays ads, impeding advertisers’ ability to optimize advertising and lower costs…Google knows that a search engine “get[s] better as you have more users” because its quality improves on metrics such as personalization, refinements, and the ability to decipher what the user is searching for “Large-scale machine learning[,]”
Start throwing in technical jargon about how the ad algorithm works, and even the most technical lay person is going to shrug their shoulders and go “I dunno, sounds like magic”.
Other expert witnesses will still have to explain how Google fits a monopoly under an economic system, again too many technical jargon and people will shrug their shoulders and go “I dunno, sounds like voodoo.”
I think the case is crystal clear even to someone who has no technical knowledge. The question is whether the judge will be swayed by the lobbying power of the Big Tech
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.
Google search is an inferior search product.
Google, Twitter, and Reddit are proof that your business cannot relay on a middle man without that middle man creating a monopoly that shits itself
God the nightmare we will get when Gaben passes…
Valve is directly owned by him with no stockholder nonsense, as I understand it, so perhaps he has willed it to someone who will handle it well. Hopefully. I don’t like everything about Steam, but I do like that, assuming I’m not misinformed.
What I’m paranoid is that it seems companies have started giving out arbitrary bans as part of a power trip.
My friend’s an Overwatch Streamer and they shot him with a one-month ban for “Being Toxic”
His toxic behavior was… “Asking people to stop using racial slurs in voice chat”
It is now but it wasn’t always.
I’m not surprised at all. Only people who work in IT are aware or care about anything other then the default apps and operating systems.
So we have two options:
-
A 52 year old federal judge is somehow tech illiterate in a way that would imply they have absolutely no idea about the fundamentals of modern technology.
-
A federal judge is asking a large number of extremely basic questions to get their answers on official records so that the cases parameters are clearly defined. He is taking extra care because there’s not a lot of direct precedent on these issues.
I’m heavily leaning towards number 2 here. The internet likes to pretend everyone over the age of 40 has no idea how a computer works. The year is 2023. A middle-aged person today was fairly young when computers started to be incorporated into all aspects of society and is well versed in computer literacy. In some ways they are actually much more tech literate than the younger generations. It’s almost certain that he knows the difference between Firefox and Google.
Honestly same. The passage of time is weird
People think 52 is like super old… but really that’s just Gen X
Hell you really wanna know how warped our perception of time is?
Most people think 20 years ago Mario was an 8bit platformer that revitalized interest in video games after Atari killed the medium with oversaturation and nonexistent quality control.
What was Mario 20 years ago? An aging mascot with a divisive summer themed pollution game that I loved but others seemed to hate, on a console that only did well with diehard fans… 20 years ago Nintendo wasn’t the big man on campus, that was Sony with the PS2 despite it being weaker than GCN and Xbox.
Kinda lost me with Mario
I agree, none of that comparison made sense. It relies too much on prior knowledge/association.
Lemme break it down then…
Most people, if asked what a Mario game, one of the most iconic and best selling franchises in gaming history… beaten out only by Pokemon (owned by the same company) was like 20 years ago, they’d describe this - https://youtu.be/7qirrV8w5SQ
When in reality, Mario 20 years ago, was this - https://youtu.be/WIHFSgPv3Ak
This is due to how bad of a perception of time we as humans seem to have… It works for other things
20 years ago “Ah yeah that’s when we were using floppy disks right?”
Heck my brother’s a pretty sharp guy, but at one point he seemed to think my dad’s generation grew up with black and white silent films, and not… Friday the 13th or Ghostbusters
Well, in the 1970/1980 there actually were still a lot of black and white movies on TV. “The Streets of San Francisco” “Kojak” “Dragnet” not to mention the endless reruns of Stan and Laurel.
For reruns in Argentina, nothing beats Disney’s Zorro. It’s a full-on revered classic here.
For reruns in Argentina, nothing beats Disney’s Zorro. It’s a full-on revered classic here.
Wow, I remember that one too from my child hood. The German TV played it once, the Austrian TV played it like over and over again. Don’t ask me why but the Austrian TV was always miles better than the German TV. Living close to the border allowed us to watch both, sometimes even the Swiss TV which was usually attrocious.
-
