Don't forget ChromeOS. Chrome can not be separated from it so it will have to go too and it has a 20% US market share, bigger than Apple on the desktop.
That's why they are working hard to implement all ChromeOS functionalities in Android, then start making Pixel laptops, and stop making Chromebooks. They're going to shut down the web store and stop allowing web apps to run on future versions of ChromeOS so that only Android apps and Linux apps can run on ChromeOS.
judge: so you committed this crime. what would be a good public solution to address the crime you committed. bank robber: well, I should at least give 5% of the money I stole back to the bank but I'll go out of business if I have to give 10% and when I rob in the future I promise yell less so people are less afraid. judge: this all sounds reasonable I can see you are more then trying to be cooperative you don't have to go too far.
We've put so many features and standards into browsers it has become insanely expensive to develop a browser engine. That is the core problem. The web was never intended to be single browser / single vendor. The vast majority of these complications are not necessary. But now that they are there, you cannot create a browser without supporting 100 different ways to do CSS layout, ajax requests, sockets, javascript and so on.
That really falls on users, who only care about instant gratification and don't care about the long term consequences of supporting broken bloated web development practices, spyware, and DRM. If a website is broken in a good browser (because the site is a bad actor), the user will switch to another browser that supports the bad website.
The vast majority of the people that work for Alphabet donated money to the politicians responsible for appointing the very people who want to break up the company.
What’s more, and this is vital to understand, most of the Alphabet employees are politically disposed to the destruction of powerful institutions, including that of their own employer.
Well if you deconstruct US economy... the main goal most corporations have is to corner a market which essentially is the same as thing as monopolizing. So, we here in the US say with our mouths monopolies are bad for the culture and economy and even pass laws to deter such things, then turn around and focus all our efforts on finding ways to form monopolies. In other words... because it makes the stock values rise. So, it is baked into the cake. The folks in Washinton make money from this system. They have no incentive to end unfair toxic business practices.
As much as google is bad I do not think breaking them will improve anything, forcing them to comply with open standards would be a much better outcome.
They do comply with open standards though. Really well in fact. A lot of nonstandard browser specific cruft had to be included for interoperability early on, but that is slowly getting phased out since those old browsers and sites don't exist anymore. What they actually do is use their position to advocate for new standards, but if the other players don't play ball, then there is really nothing Google can do about it.
What we need is for cellphone manufactures to UNLOCK their bootloaders. They definitely should have to provide unlocking tools the moment any device goes out of support.
Has there been any ruling of this scale since Microsoft was forced to do this in 2000? ... And didn't that ruling pave the way to the vibrant tech sector we have today? ... Would Google even have been what it is today, if not for that ruling?...
Microsoft wasn't forced to sell off IE, though, just stop forcing it on users. Penalizing companies for doing monopolistic things seems very different to me than penalizing them for having a product be too successful. Forcing google to stop making deals to be default search would make sense, forcing it to sell chrome would not.
@@AndRei-yc3ti Can you be anti-competitive if you have no competitors? Unless Google is somehow going out and sabotaging everyone else it feels like no one else is even trying to make a working browser, they all just made yet another variant of Chrome or completely gave up trying. As far as advertising the only 2 worth mentioning are Google and Facebook, and Facebook is busy destroying itself.
Im old enough to remember when microsoft got in trouble for similar things. Remember when a page wouldn't load in Netscape and only Internet Explorer? Microsoft made website building tools and ensured this problem. Google has taken control of Internet standards in the way the Microsoft tried to.
I wonder what'll happen to UA-cam if Google gets broken up - who might buy it or what changes we'll see? Honestly, while Google deserves these lawsuits, there are bigger fish to fry. Take BlackRock for example - they're a much more serious concern. They don't just own one industry, they have stakes in everything from the tech you use to the food you eat. Sure, some argue they're "just" an investment company, but that's exactly the problem - they have influence over all companies, that could push for price hikes, pump rent prices, and affect everyday costs. They have more control than Apple, Google, and Microsoft combined, yet they fly under the radar. THAT'S who we should be breaking up.
Being a monopoly is in itself not illegal. The problems start when you use your monopoly in one market to try to obtain a monopoly in other markets. Any proposed solution has to address that specific aspect, and Google clearly knows this. Big payments don't really addresses this, rather the opposite. It will involve splitting off those parts which play a role in this, one way or another, and anything Google proposes will be judged on that aspect.
totally stupid to pretend to "break up" monopolies in this way, Holding company Monopoly buys or makes sub company A,B,C and then must sell C, to holding Holding company Monopoly with different name and paperwork but is the same company, if you really wanted to break up a monopoly break up the actual holding companies with ALL their holdings split in to many different companies. not just give the holding companies a way to amputate and down size off it's less profitable parts, and call it "breaking up". the government is the one really in charge of the monopoly. government has insurance by the balls, insurance must invest in the stock market, insurance ends up secretly owning the holding companies, that manipulate and bribe the government.
chrome with 90% market share is still a monopoly, and android with 60% market share is also still a monopoly. it's just not chrome and android, together.
Google is a supply company with its web search and consumer company with its browser. Owning supply and demand is a clear monopoly. The split should’ve been done long ago.
But is independent Chrome really a business proposition? It only works because it’s a part of Google’s strategy. Who would buy it and how would they make money, given the Firefox situation with loss of the Google revenue for search defaults? Microsoft or Apple?
Splitting it up has no bearing on the problem with the monopoly Google holds. That's how the biggest companies conserve their power over decades. They need to rebrand and conceal their identity through various companies to remain under the radar. The same was true for the Rockefeller Foundation roughly a hundred years ago. Today, very few people even know its name, but its power and influence in the market remain significant.
I hope they're forced to sell off TTS because voice typing on Android is virtually useless at this point. It worked very well about 5 years ago. Just another example of Google's adoption of a product/service causing enshitification soon after the fact.
It didn't work for Microsoft, it won't work for Google. And what does it matter now, the damage has been done. With Microsoft they split the company up over IE and Microsoft was still able to kill Netscape. Nothing will change, it will just create multiple mini-Googles that will still work together.
Friendly reminder that regardless of this, the Chromium monoculture is a very bad thing and you should use Firefox-based forks only to combat it. No Brave, Edge, or Opera.
It's not just Google who are a monopoly, what about Microsoft and them constantly forcing Edge, this now can't be uninstalled without a lot of hassle. Apple are just as bad.
Google would be very happy to sell off UA-cam. It's a massive money sink that relies on ad revenue and data collection to barely exist. It's only very recently that UA-cam has brought any profit. I'm curious if anyone is actually willing to even buy YT
Not a fan of this tbh. Chrome and Android are popular because they are really quite good. Lots of vendors take advantage of these open-source projects for their own products because they are so good. What other company has the capital to dump into these absolute money pits without ruining the projects with demands of monetization?
buying chrome makes no sense, when anyone could make a patchset against chromium already. Chrome is just a google patchset on top of chromium. unless someone wants to buy all of chromeOS of course. But still does not make sense in my head. Microsoft should also be forced to sell Edge then. It just seems like they want to prevent youtube from being sold.
Is this the main reason why they're trying to fuse ChromeOS with Android? I mean sure, I'm all for the move but I hope this doesn't take away what little customization ChromeOS had like being able to use Linux to use some something other than Vanilla Google Chrome.
They said Android, not Google Play. Very different things. Android is the AOSP project that is currently free and open-source. In other words, a money sink.
I'd buy that for a dollar, though not much more. Won't change a thing, of course. Just another invalid solution that will likely result in grifting and taking advantage of MORE people more successfully, not any less.
Kill Chrome. It's only able to access Gmail Webmail when you click on a "mailto:" link and one *_cannot_* configure it access a third-party email client. Effin' useless. Chromium, on which Chrome is based, doesn't impose this idiotic limitation.
And that's a problem. With the Chromium base being the core of SO many browsers, on pretty much EVERY operating system, when (not if) some core vulnerability is discovered, a majority of web browsers will be under attack. The risk of a monoculture.
Is Google a monopoly or does it just make a better product? Many products are associated with Google. For example, my medical portal uses Google and if I want to use the portal for long distance consultations with my doctor, I have to use Google or Edge. Is this wrong? No, because I have a third choice. I can use an app and talk to my doctor. Government should not be telling a corporation how to run their business. If people do not like how a company is operating, stop using that product. Eventually, when the company has lost enough revenue, someone will say changes need to be made.
Google, having scraped most every webpage, is in a position to test run a browser stack against that all... I don't know if you could be as effective with a browser test suite without access to *that resource. * A process that downloads every webpage. Even if you separate these financially, in some respects they will still want to work/contract closely together.
Dude, with respect, you like listening to yourself talk way too much. It's how you speak, you draw out every bit of information to the nth degree. That, along with the title, which is clickbait and not "determined" as of yet, means I unsub you. Respect our time please.
Don't forget ChromeOS. Chrome can not be separated from it so it will have to go too and it has a 20% US market share, bigger than Apple on the desktop.
something something year of the linux desktop
@@aac74 And that's 21% too much.
That's why they are working hard to implement all ChromeOS functionalities in Android, then start making Pixel laptops, and stop making Chromebooks. They're going to shut down the web store and stop allowing web apps to run on future versions of ChromeOS so that only Android apps and Linux apps can run on ChromeOS.
@@sqlexp Interesting hypothesis. Any evidence for it out there? (I'm asking because I'd like to see it, not to challenge the hypothesis, mind.)
The market share of chrome os is 2.12%, below the 4.31% of Linux desktop...
judge: so you committed this crime. what would be a good public solution to address the crime you committed.
bank robber: well, I should at least give 5% of the money I stole back to the bank but I'll go out of business if I have to give 10% and when I rob in the future I promise yell less so people are less afraid.
judge: this all sounds reasonable I can see you are more then trying to be cooperative you don't have to go too far.
Microsoft, you have the chance to do the funniest thing, buy chrome, rename it to internet explorer
LOL that would be funny, but it would just be merged with Edge and renamed Microsoft chrome to convey the info to consumers
and wind up in the exact same situation as before? hard pass.
They basically already have that with Edge, Isn't it based on the same base project?
@@CommanderRiker0 yes edge is chrome based
It's infuriating. Chrome is not a monopoly. I have FIVE browsers that I use for different purposes. They have no idea what they are regulating.
We've put so many features and standards into browsers it has become insanely expensive to develop a browser engine. That is the core problem. The web was never intended to be single browser / single vendor. The vast majority of these complications are not necessary. But now that they are there, you cannot create a browser without supporting 100 different ways to do CSS layout, ajax requests, sockets, javascript and so on.
How many "programs" are just skins on top of Chromium Embedded Framework? Discord and Steam immediately spring to mind.
Microsoft tried that with Edge - not the Chromium Edge - but og Edge that did everything better. Didn't last long.
Yep, that's called monopoly. They made the architecture this bad on purpose.
Remember the old Playstation tagline of "it only does... everything"? That applies to internet browsers now.
That really falls on users, who only care about instant gratification and don't care about the long term consequences of supporting broken bloated web development practices, spyware, and DRM. If a website is broken in a good browser (because the site is a bad actor), the user will switch to another browser that supports the bad website.
Okay, but does this actually matter?
Breaking news: Android partners with browser titan Chrome who partners with Google Ads....
Stuff like that could still see them penalized under antitrust laws.
Imagine if somehow the EFF or the Tor Project ends up buying it...
THAT would be awesome.
Do they have the resources for that?
dude that would be so cool
lol no
After 40+ years of working in IT, I've learned that the only thing more stupid than tech company leadership is the Department of Justice.
This guy gets it.
Wow, imagine Android or Chrome if its developers' goal was to make them function better instead of just integrate as much Google dogshit as possible
The vast majority of the people that work for Alphabet donated money to the politicians responsible for appointing the very people who want to break up the company.
really just shows everything around you is being ran by nitwits
It's beautiful isn't it? 😂 Got what they voted for
and?
What’s more, and this is vital to understand, most of the Alphabet employees are politically disposed to the destruction of powerful institutions, including that of their own employer.
Funny how the closest companies to regulators are all exiting the browser market.
"Baby Googles" sounds like it belongs in the same class as "Coco Melon" style of children's entertainment
US justice becomes extremely slow and lenient every time when it comes to protecting people from monopolies.
Well if you deconstruct US economy... the main goal most corporations have is to corner a market which essentially is the same as thing as monopolizing. So, we here in the US say with our mouths monopolies are bad for the culture and economy and even pass laws to deter such things, then turn around and focus all our efforts on finding ways to form monopolies. In other words... because it makes the stock values rise. So, it is baked into the cake. The folks in Washinton make money from this system. They have no incentive to end unfair toxic business practices.
That's not a slap on the wrist or even a band aid. I think splitting these companies up is a sly way of creating Two monopolies out of one.
duopoly is the term I think youre looking for.
@@pluto8404 Federally, it's not considered competition unless there are three or more options available.
@justanothercomment416 ironic since our elections only have 2 real options.
@@pluto8404 Well, start voting third-party then. The Libertarian Party would welcome you.
RESIDENTS❤
It would be funny if Yahoo bought it.
Yahoo still exists?
@@bobclarke5913 barely. pretty big in japan still though, from what i've seen.
That would be epic.
"You know we declined your proposal years ago......"
@@bobclarke5913 it’s where boomers get their internet news and recipes when they aren’t on Facebook.
man, thanks for your hard work, it's nice to still have a journalist that's not a talking head for companies.
Should let uBlock Origin back into the chrome store - ha!
How many "programs" are just skins on top of Chromium Embedded Framework? Discord and Steam immediately spring to mind.
I think that UA-cam must also be separated from google.
As much as google is bad I do not think breaking them will improve anything, forcing them to comply with open standards would be a much better outcome.
It is a step...
They do comply with open standards though. Really well in fact. A lot of nonstandard browser specific cruft had to be included for interoperability early on, but that is slowly getting phased out since those old browsers and sites don't exist anymore. What they actually do is use their position to advocate for new standards, but if the other players don't play ball, then there is really nothing Google can do about it.
holy yes take android away from google
dude u realize thats not a good idea
@@CRYPTiCEXiLEAndroid is currently very bloated and it needs to be redone
@@CRYPTiCEXiLE They are dumb what do you expect ...
What we need is for cellphone manufactures to UNLOCK their bootloaders. They definitely should have to provide unlocking tools the moment any device goes out of support.
@@taaest-xek they? who's they?
To whom it is going to sell it to though?
Microsoft probably wants a share of the pie
Well, splitting stuff does not necessarily means selling it.
Selling is one way, though.
Has there been any ruling of this scale since Microsoft was forced to do this in 2000? ... And didn't that ruling pave the way to the vibrant tech sector we have today? ... Would Google even have been what it is today, if not for that ruling?...
Microsoft wasn't forced to sell off IE, though, just stop forcing it on users. Penalizing companies for doing monopolistic things seems very different to me than penalizing them for having a product be too successful. Forcing google to stop making deals to be default search would make sense, forcing it to sell chrome would not.
@@nephatrine its not being penalized for being too successful. Its penalized for its anticompetotive practices
@@nephatrine They steered Firefox into the ditch so they could have a successful monopoly with Chrome.
@@AndRei-yc3ti Can you be anti-competitive if you have no competitors? Unless Google is somehow going out and sabotaging everyone else it feels like no one else is even trying to make a working browser, they all just made yet another variant of Chrome or completely gave up trying. As far as advertising the only 2 worth mentioning are Google and Facebook, and Facebook is busy destroying itself.
@Tyneras google did many anticompetitive things to force people to adopt chrome and destroy the competition
Im old enough to remember when microsoft got in trouble for similar things. Remember when a page wouldn't load in Netscape and only Internet Explorer? Microsoft made website building tools and ensured this problem. Google has taken control of Internet standards in the way the Microsoft tried to.
chrome dont show certain formats either and if i dont want chrome users on my site I would use them
finally but i still dont like chrome
Good. Google is too big.
100%... Google can be just a search engine. You know... like how it should be.
@@thalateye Google was never just a search engine.
They need to split UA-cam and search apart
I wonder what'll happen to UA-cam if Google gets broken up - who might buy it or what changes we'll see? Honestly, while Google deserves these lawsuits, there are bigger fish to fry. Take BlackRock for example - they're a much more serious concern. They don't just own one industry, they have stakes in everything from the tech you use to the food you eat. Sure, some argue they're "just" an investment company, but that's exactly the problem - they have influence over all companies, that could push for price hikes, pump rent prices, and affect everyday costs. They have more control than Apple, Google, and Microsoft combined, yet they fly under the radar. THAT'S who we should be breaking up.
Need to completely separate every aspect of Google.
Being a monopoly is in itself not illegal. The problems start when you use your monopoly in one market to try to obtain a monopoly in other markets. Any proposed solution has to address that specific aspect, and Google clearly knows this. Big payments don't really addresses this, rather the opposite. It will involve splitting off those parts which play a role in this, one way or another, and anything Google proposes will be judged on that aspect.
totally stupid to pretend to "break up" monopolies in this way, Holding company Monopoly buys or makes sub company A,B,C and then must sell C, to holding Holding company Monopoly with different name and paperwork but is the same company, if you really wanted to break up a monopoly break up the actual holding companies with ALL their holdings split in to many different companies. not just give the holding companies a way to amputate and down size off it's less profitable parts, and call it "breaking up". the government is the one really in charge of the monopoly. government has insurance by the balls, insurance must invest in the stock market, insurance ends up secretly owning the holding companies, that manipulate and bribe the government.
Who has whom by the balls?
Will be interesting to see how this goes, but I won't celebrate until I know it turns out.
closed source future coming.
chrome with 90% market share is still a monopoly, and android with 60% market share is also still a monopoly. it's just not chrome and android, together.
Google is a supply company with its web search and consumer company with its browser. Owning supply and demand is a clear monopoly. The split should’ve been done long ago.
And who's going to finance Chrome? Why would anyone buy the company?
Never underestimat Google or Kammy's ability to blow it. In the end. They all follow the ring into the fire.
But is independent Chrome really a business proposition? It only works because it’s a part of Google’s strategy. Who would buy it and how would they make money, given the Firefox situation with loss of the Google revenue for search defaults? Microsoft or Apple?
Splitting it up has no bearing on the problem with the monopoly Google holds. That's how the biggest companies conserve their power over decades. They need to rebrand and conceal their identity through various companies to remain under the radar. The same was true for the Rockefeller Foundation roughly a hundred years ago. Today, very few people even know its name, but its power and influence in the market remain significant.
I wonder if they have the balls to split into 33 new companies named from A to Z.
33???
В английском алфавите 26 букв?
I always thought Google + UA-cam was too much power concentrated in one company.
.. I wonder what will become of Google's data centers with suspiciously high (practically military-grade) security ..? 🤔
This is good. We need more of this.
I hope they're forced to sell off TTS because voice typing on Android is virtually useless at this point. It worked very well about 5 years ago. Just another example of Google's adoption of a product/service causing enshitification soon after the fact.
How would a company monetise Chrome. It's not chrome that does ad-insertion it's the websites.
hopefully this is actually true. chromium not being google owned would be huge for the browser market and hopefully privacy as well
What does this mean for Chomebook?
I heard today that ChromeOS is already being replaced by Android. Not saying it's related.
100% going with the Chrome web browser
@@donaldturnbull it means buy a real computer.
It will be replaced with Pixel book or Pixel laptop, whichever name they choose, running Android.
It’s being killed off
It didn't work for Microsoft, it won't work for Google. And what does it matter now, the damage has been done. With Microsoft they split the company up over IE and Microsoft was still able to kill Netscape. Nothing will change, it will just create multiple mini-Googles that will still work together.
Friendly reminder that regardless of this, the Chromium monoculture is a very bad thing and you should use Firefox-based forks only to combat it. No Brave, Edge, or Opera.
or... you can encourage brave to hard fork chromium...
Eh not every site works with every browser type, Brave + LibreWolf seem to be the best fork of each base currently
i have been saying this for 10 years, and i think you have, too
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks No, do you just not understand what a monoculture is?
you should also fit your car with square wheels to combat the dominance of round wheels monoculture
It's not just Google who are a monopoly, what about Microsoft and them constantly forcing Edge, this now can't be uninstalled without a lot of hassle. Apple are just as bad.
So they gonna have to let UA-cam go too? Force google to stay in the search engine market?
Would probably have to be bought by some company like IBM or (barf) Oracle.
Ehh just wait 10 years, like Microsoft and just reintegrate it.
Microsoft wasn't broken in the 1990s. Google won't be broken today.
Google should be forced to sell UA-cam and Android at the very least
Google would be very happy to sell off UA-cam. It's a massive money sink that relies on ad revenue and data collection to barely exist. It's only very recently that UA-cam has brought any profit.
I'm curious if anyone is actually willing to even buy YT
Make UA-cam great again
I think they might sell gmail and google drive
Not a fan of this tbh. Chrome and Android are popular because they are really quite good. Lots of vendors take advantage of these open-source projects for their own products because they are so good. What other company has the capital to dump into these absolute money pits without ruining the projects with demands of monetization?
Do you believe I have a chance my app will be returned in the Google? Play?
Lee-Ann Mulholland is right
buying chrome makes no sense, when anyone could make a patchset against chromium already. Chrome is just a google patchset on top of chromium. unless someone wants to buy all of chromeOS of course. But still does not make sense in my head. Microsoft should also be forced to sell Edge then. It just seems like they want to prevent youtube from being sold.
They should have to sell off UA-cam as well
you still cannot uninstall the default Microsoft browser, I guess its time to go after them again?
You mean so they can giggle and goof off like middle schoolers, then get it thrown out afterwards? That's what they did last time.
Awesome. When do I get degoogled chrome?
Lunduke, you really need to start making a bunch of alts cause it seems everyone's got an official policy to not respond to you lmao.
Is this the main reason why they're trying to fuse ChromeOS with Android? I mean sure, I'm all for the move but I hope this doesn't take away what little customization ChromeOS had like being able to use Linux to use some something other than Vanilla Google Chrome.
They are actually planning to sunset it
The web browser will probably be next
I use Bing
Bing was best for image search, last I checked
Interesting that it's Amit Metha who deals with this. His other job is to go after Trump & al. for January 6.
Bloomberg, Google lol the Noses in this
Just open source chrome, not just chromium
Sell to Yahoo
Mutzilla
Mudzilla
Motzilla
google no longer in possession of android, wouldn't that free android from the google store to some extent?
They said Android, not Google Play. Very different things. Android is the AOSP project that is currently free and open-source. In other words, a money sink.
I'd buy that for a dollar, though not much more. Won't change a thing, of course. Just another invalid solution that will likely result in grifting and taking advantage of MORE people more successfully, not any less.
What if Google sells Chrome to X?
That... is... the worst thing I've heard. Elon Musk controlling the browser making it free of speech complaint?
Kill Chrome. It's only able to access Gmail Webmail when you click on a "mailto:" link and one *_cannot_* configure it access a third-party email client. Effin' useless. Chromium, on which Chrome is based, doesn't impose this idiotic limitation.
👍 ...they broke my thumb so I gotta put it down here~
what about microsoft?
I wonder as I wander: would we be having this conversation had the recent election went the other way? Hmm...
I don't get how Google is a monopoly? Google services are exceptional and the alternatives are few.
Do you think Alphabet won't own the company that owns Chrome? 😅
Thanks for the good news 👍 👏
What took them so long?!
The attack on Iran. They're not ready yet.
Oh...
RIP Chrome, Chromium and his forks
I want Musk to buy UA-cam. It will would become the West's video channel. He would make shed loads of money of it.
Do it to micro$oft not google
this is very scary because chromium is basically a public utility. everything is based on it.
And that's a problem. With the Chromium base being the core of SO many browsers, on pretty much EVERY operating system, when (not if) some core vulnerability is discovered, a majority of web browsers will be under attack. The risk of a monoculture.
@@theclassicalhomeopath and that's why my comment, the top comment, is about the toxicity of a monoculture of Chromium.
@@SenileOtakuit's not limited to browsers, Discord is just reskinned CEF and Steam lost W7 support when it completely rebased the program off of CEF.
Is Google a monopoly or does it just make a better product? Many products are associated with Google. For example, my medical portal uses Google and if I want to use the portal for long distance consultations with my doctor, I have to use Google or Edge. Is this wrong? No, because I have a third choice. I can use an app and talk to my doctor. Government should not be telling a corporation how to run their business. If people do not like how a company is operating, stop using that product. Eventually, when the company has lost enough revenue, someone will say changes need to be made.
Google, having scraped most every webpage, is in a position to test run a browser stack against that all... I don't know if you could be as effective with a browser test suite without access to *that resource. * A process that downloads every webpage. Even if you separate these financially, in some respects they will still want to work/contract closely together.
Google do not succumb to the Tramp mafiosi.
From the River To The Sea! ✊
Google dismantling because Isnotreal asked it .
Dude, with respect, you like listening to yourself talk way too much. It's how you speak, you draw out every bit of information to the nth degree.
That, along with the title, which is clickbait and not "determined" as of yet, means I unsub you. Respect our time please.
Oh no!!
Anyways.. 🤭
Thanks Bryan.
Well, interesting.
First
No one cares.
Nice
I wish i said first
@@JodyBruchon You cared enough to reply...
@@aakasoto Shitting on someone isn't caring.
Maybe google can acquire a new browser... Mozilla posturing for the possibility?
I would love to see Mozilla Chrome...
@ElonMusk