Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine
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.
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.
![[HN] Judge in US/Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine](https://lemmy.uhhoh.com/pictrs/image/14af78c4-51b8-45b3-8f7b-ce0eb22471b0.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
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.
I teach a programming class to young adults (18-25, usually) and was flabbergasted last semester when I realized that a couple of them didn't know what a directory hierarchy/file system was.
My suspicion is that the ease of use angle of "just tell me what you want and I'll find it" led to this. Not saying ease of use is bad, but I expected more from people wanting to learn programming.
And I'm over here meticulously organizing my music library into folders by band, album, year, etc...o the humanity.
There's a subgroup of the millennial and gen X that grew up with a sweet spot of computers such that you actually need to know how it works in order to use one effectively. Ease enough to do a lot of fun stuff, hard enough that it encourages learning the technical minutiae. The rise of smart phones and net/chrome books means there is a huge chunk of population that has a superficial and passing relationship with tech. It's big buttons or else it doesn't register with them. It's not their fault, the pursue of usability and fool proofing without actually giving tools to dig deep when necessary means they have less exposure to the underlying tech. Thus are less familiar with how things work. It's an universal phenomenon, I would bet most people have no clue how to raise, grow and process food, but still we don't starve, we go to the grocery and buy what's there already cleaned, processed and packaged. There are huge advantages to understanding the chain of production of food, but I'd guess most people would struggle in an agronomy class about what's a compost bin.
As one of those people who didn't understand what file systems and directories were at 18, it isn't taught in early school so you don't notice it is a thing that exists until you stumble upon it yourself. I distinctly remember the day it clicked and it felt like I had had an epiphany.
Once you break that basic barrier then you rely on your interests to take you further. I went from not understanding that to being a Linux guru in years time, so I fully believe if the desire to learn is there, it will happen. It is just not mandatory to learn anymore. So most people don't.
And I'm over here meticulously organizing my music library into folders by band, album, year, etc...o the humanity.
beets, it's a life changer
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.
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.
Another thing not being considered by all the "judge doesn't know anything" crowd is that they're failing to consider that this case isn't really about search engines or Alphabet as a company.
It's about monopoly laws. In this case, pertaining to Google and Mozilla, but monopolies nonetheless.
Lots of people of my gen were utterly clueless about computers growing up-- it was arcane nerd shit.
You didn't have to know how to use a computer until much later in life in a number of careers.
Hell, my university still had rentable typewriters in the library, which still had a physical card catalog (alongside the new computerized one), and we still wrote tests by hand (essay or otherwise). Laptops weren't a thing. And not everyone had a PC/Mac. The Internet was something most students were oblivious to. The web was only just in its infancy and only the nerds knew about it as a curious novelty. Hell, there wasn't even DNS back then. Everyone downloaded a "hosts" file.
Even so, I'm still struggling to imagine how a person still doesn't know the difference between a search engine and a browser, though.
Then again, I suppose some people are just really awful at analytical thinking -- understanding how to decompose complex things. Understanding how the parts and pieces work. The people who were really bad at that kind of thing probably would have steered clear of computers as much as possible.
So, ok, maybe if a person avoids computers in undergrad and law school in the 90s then becomes a lawyer, they can just actively avoid computers in their job. That's one career where maybe that's possible because, by the time computers become truly ubiquitous, your assistants that can do the computer stuff for you.
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.
I'm a 53 year old IT person, and I'm leaning towards 1. The level of technology incompetence in the general public is astounding. My wife only knows "Have you tried turning it off and back on again?" And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
My mom uses a computer at her job but confuses the terms computer, internet, browser and email on a regular basis. I wonder what would happen if I restarted the internet as she tells me to sometimes. I could install Linux and she wouldn't tell.
Still better than her father, who had her operate a casette player for him when she was 2.
The law is nuanced out the ass. I sit through depositions every day, and terms of art are a plague, and you can say something, but it can be interpreted differently because in such and such a field it's a term of art, etc. That's my hope.
I am fully on board with we need more judges, we need younger judges. But I don't think that's because they're incapable of learning. In fact, I think there's be value to someone going in blind, being given all the facts, and making their determination that way. It just sucks that something we value so highly can be determined based on the presentation of counsel.
It's always amazed me of the learning gap.. we learned how to get stuff working by hacking config.sys and our peers can it seems barely spell computer.
It's even worse as people get younger, even though it shouldn't be. How computers work should be in peoples DNA by now, but they still think you've deleted IE if you hide the icon..
Agreed. If it has a positive effect as in 2, I'm all for it, but trusting that a non-technical user really know what's going on with his computer is a serious gamble.
My wife only knows "Have you tried turning it off and back on again?" And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
Next step: "Is it even powered?"
To be Dennis Ritchie was born in 40-ies. He would be 80 y.o. if he didn't die in 2013. And he is most literate person on this planet.
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.
In the 1990s if you wanted to play a PC game you had install it manually with a CD, typically configure ini files in a text editor and fix irq requests for your peripherals just to play. In the contemporary world a zoomer only needs to tap the install icon on the screen, Gen Z may have more experience usually technology than any previous generation, but the days of asking grandma to fix your computer seem a certainty on the horizon.
Yep, the digital illiteracy of the z gen is terrifying. Apparently contemporary teens have no understanding of the folder structure. Like, at all. Of the concept of files having their location. It's all because they were brought up with iPhones for everything just is, and iCloud where everything just is.
I work as a website developer and I think number one is so, so much more likely. The average person barely knows how to use a computer at all, let alone how it works and different terminology.
An older, non-IT person - an actual judge, yeah I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt here - they likely don't know lol
Not sure why "old+judge" automatically equals "tech illiterate." The judge in another high-profile Google case taught himself to code
I have soon a PhD in computer tech related subject, program for living, and am a lot younger than the judge, and if you ask me if Mozilla makes a search engine I would say I have no idea, they've made a lot of stuff. And if you asked me how Google's SEM tools work I would ask wtf is SEM.
-
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?!
Plus it's an opening statement. It's an intro that tells the finder of fact (traditionally a jury, but for cases like this it's the judge) what evidence you're going to present during the trial. You want that person to be able to place that argument in context, but the very nature of explaining that "I'm going to show you a bunch of stuff" is going to have a bunch of "well I haven't seen it yet, so can you tell me what to expect" responses.
Especially if there's a discussion of the different contractual relationships and the different companies and products. I've seen plenty of judges insist on clarity when communicating about things that might have more than one meaning: a company that has the same name as a product that company produces (Toyota makes Toyotas), a legal entity that has the same name as a place (Madison Square Garden banned someone from Madison Square Garden), etc.
For all we know, the confusion might be one of the lawyer's fault, for using the words Mozilla or Firefox interchangeably, the way this article seems to.
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.
|unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine
It is neither. It is a foundation that maintains a browser. It is like asking if Microsoft is a browser or a search engine.
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
<s>Welcome to American politics. </s>
Welcome to politics.
For strike through, use ~~content~~
exampleYou forgot the /s frienderino
Tips fedora
How can anyone make a judgement about something they know nothing about? We are so doomed.
They do so all the time - do you think judges are experts in every thing? The judge needs to understand the law. It's up to the counsel to ensure they have experts to explain the details.
Judges should specialize in certain areas for this exact reason. They should absolutely understand the material as well as the law.
Wasnt there that judge who went and learned programming in order tp preside over a software patents case?
Right? It's a good thing this judge is asking questions.
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...
I'm not gonna lie, and I hate to admit it, but I actually really like Bing's ChatGPT integration. For basic searches, it does all the legwork and gets you a summarized answer with sources for more info. It even works great on really obscure topics...
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.
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 really think it's a matter of context; how one was raised, what kind of people one interacts with, interest, etc.
I'm older and i know so much more than most of my age group. I learned a long, long time ago to not be afraid to try things out, my pc is not going to explode; to investigate when i'm stuck with some computer stuff; and i have adult kids who teach me things that i don't know enough about or share their views. Some of the communities i subscribed to are about tech, FOSS, android etc. I'm always really open to boost my knowledge.
Yeah, that's great and all. But this judge shouldn't be ruling over this case if he doesn't know the basics of today's technology.
So I got to wonder, when that judge goes home at night, does his family, and especially his kids, let him know what everyone is saying about him in relation to this article?
And then I wonder how that affects him going into court the next day, when he has to ask more 'dumb' questions, does he actually ask or not.
Tech just isn’t his expertise.
Mehta has been described as an avid fan of hip hop music. In a 2015 copyright case regarding the similarity of two songs, Mehta noted in a footnote that he was "not a ‘lay person’ when it comes to hip-hop music and lyrics,” and noted he has "listened to hip hop for decades". American rappers Jay-Z, Eminem, Kanye West and Canadian rapper Drake are among his favorite artists.
Amazing underrated comment right here.
His job is to ask those questions. If he doesn't do it, his reasoning will be flawed and then the case will restart with a new judge when appealed, wasting everyone's time and money. I gotta imagine that's more embarrassing to a judge than asking these questions.
The people making decisions often don't know shit about what they're deciding. I used to wonder why huge companies with a shitload of cash make horrible decisions for their products. Hint: It's not because they hire bad engineers.
I feel like most average people (regardless of age) don't even know alternatives to internet browsers exist, so why would I expect a judge to know? They're obviously not experts in every field, it's up to the attorneys to inform them and persuade them one way or another.
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
I don't think it's that. I think most people want a judge who's knowledgeable enough on the subject that he/she's actually judging.
Bringing in experts to educate him during the court case is not right, he's supposed to be able to judge if the experts are actually experts and know what they're talking about, by the time the actual case is happening.
I don't care, i use Duck.
This guy ducks
But does he go?
So, you're saying people should go get Ducked?
I mean, i use Duckduckgo dude lmao
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Today, US District Judge Amit Mehta heard opening statements in the Department of Justice's antitrust case challenging Google's search dominance.
To prove this, the DOJ plans to bring in Hal Varian, who served as Google's chief economist at that time.
William Cavanaugh, a lawyer representing the state of Colorado, also appeared to raise one unique claim still being weighed in this case regarding Google's search engine marketing (SEM) tool SA 360.
During the more than 10-year time period that the case covers, browsers, phones, and search engines all evolved rapidly.
So, on top of weighing complicated antitrust questions, Mehta might also struggle to keep track of basic facts like how search was conducted at any given point in the case's timeline.
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.
The original article contains 496 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
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.
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
It's just one of the pipes in the interweb plumbing system duh. (That's actually a slightly better metaphor than I was going for come to think of it.)
Maybe the browser is more like a faucet and the search engine is like… the city water utility? Obviously that analogy has flaws too.
You could say your tv is like a browser and the “guide” is like a search engine. That analogy is a bit better.
The reason google is so good is that it has had a monopoly for so long it has all the data.