Latest news with #monopoly
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The 3 Best, Most Secure Web Browsers That Are Better Than Google Chrome, Experts Say
We may not think hard about our web browsers, but they have huge power over our lives as the gateway to the internet. Every day, we use them to search for answers, talk to friends and learn new if you're on the internet long enough, your default web browser is likely Google Chrome. Google's dominance over how we search the web and browse the internet is by design, and even illegal, according to a federal ruling in the company's online search monopoly case. Last year, a federal judge ruled that Google broke the law by making it harder for consumers to use anything else. The judge found that Google had paid companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars a year to have Google become the default on smartphones and web beyond the question of legality, consider that using a different web browser just might be better. You might even be surprised by how much more secure your browsing experience becomes when you leave the walled Google ecosystem. When you make Google your default search engine, default browser and default password manager, you are making yourself less secure online, said Mishaal Khan, a chief information security officer for several mid-sized companies. 'Putting all your eggs in one basket is pretty dangerous,' he said. 'Especially in a basket that's owned by a huge conglomerate whose entire goal and existence is based on... collecting information about you to earn money.'HuffPost asked a range of tech and security experts about their favorite non-Google browsers. Khan said his favorite web browser is Firefox, which was developed by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, because it focuses on privacy and is open source for tech-savvy people to customize and learn from. 'It does not track users. It does not send any tracking information back to its headquarters, whereas Google Chrome and the entire ecosystem is monetizing off of what you do on the internet,' Khan said. Every time you are signed onto Google Chrome, meanwhile, you are helping Google build a detailed profile of your interests and habits for ad trackers. You can erase your web and app activity from Google's records, but the idea behind privacy-focused browsers is that they do not do this to begin also noted that on Firefox, you can open '345 times as many tabs' than you can on Google Chrome without it crashing because the browser is less resource-intensive than Chrome is on your computer. And if you're loving Firefox, try Firefox Focus, a free and open-source privacy-focused mobile browser that is also developed by Mozilla. Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said this browser is a useful option for mobile devices because 'it has solid tracking protection out of the box, and the big delete button makes it simple to wipe your history.''It can be useful for all the random, often pointless searches you might do on your phone so they aren't used for ads or whatever else,' he noted. 'The reason I use Brave is because I just frankly got sick of ads and ad tracking, and what I perceive to be an incredible invasion of privacy,' said George Kamide, co-host of the cybersecurity podcast 'Bare Knuckles and Brass Tacks.'When you use Brave, the browser blocks trackers and third-party cookies that are monitoring your activity as you tap and click through the web. 'You can still have Gmail open in Brave. It's just disrupting some of the cookies and stuff like that, but you can still get it functional,' Kamide said. 'I have converted family members because just on the user experience alone, they were like, 'Oh, I can, like, finally read the BBC and not have shoe ads in my face.'' Digital product leader and AI researcher Jill Heinze said she purposefully switched from Chrome to DuckDuckGo as her default web browser earlier this year after an 'increasingly polarized political environment made me question more seriously how my data privacy in many ecosystems could be infringed,' she said. 'Government phone searches at the border, for example, made me newly sensitive to what's in my browser history.'Heinze likes DuckDuckGo because this browser has 'a solid reputation for not storing, and therefore not sharing, your history. It surfaces general ads based on your present search, but doesn't use other targeting methods.'Now, 'any time I have a random curiosity, DuckDuckGo is my first stop, and I don't have to worry that my freely exploring topics will be forever tied to my identity or pushed to me in ads across all of my devices,' Heinze said. 'I find it simple and clean, and with one-button press, I can wipe out my tabs, which does give me at least a feeling of more control over my data.' No matter which browser you choose, give it a try for at least two weeks. You might be instinctively missing Google the first few days, but by the end, you might be surprised by how much you like your new browser. When researchers for a National Bureau of Economic Research study paid people to use Microsoft's Bing for two weeks, a significant number –– about 22% –– chose to keep using it even after the bribes ended, with most of those users reporting that Bing was better than expected. In other words, many people are willing to switch to a new browser if they are just given the chance. Major tech giants like Google win when you don't realize you have other options that can give you equally, if not more, secure browser that's a choice that's still in your power to make. Experts Reveal The 7 Hidden iPhone Hacks That Help Them Be More Productive 4 Password Rules Everyone Should Follow, According To Data Security Experts PSA: Don't Be Like JD Vance And Leave Your Venmo Public
Zawya
2 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
India government asks court to reject challenge to copper import curbs
The Indian government has rejected a claim by trade bodies that its move to impose quality control curbs on copper cathode imports would lead to a monopoly, as 10 foreign suppliers have obtained certification, a legal document showed on Thursday. India, the world's second-largest importer of refined copper, is defending its quality control measures in court against accusations that it would lead to supply shortages and create a monopoly of three domestic suppliers. In an over 160-page reply to the petitions by the Bombay Metal Exchange (BME) and the Bombay Non-Ferrous Metals Association, the government says their concerns on supply constraints are "misconceived and unfounded". "The implementation of the QCO has not led to any monopolistic practices of price distortion," said India's Ministry of Mines, as it asked for the rejection of the trade associations' legal challenge. The Bombay Metal Exchange, the Bombay Non-Ferrous Metals Association and the federal Ministry of Mines did not immediately respond to Reuters' emails seeking comments. The reply seen by Reuters adds that the quality control order was a regulatory measure aimed to safeguard consumer interests and applies equally to all entities whether they are domestic or foreign. "Foreign suppliers are not being barred... The regulation aims to enhance product reliability and safety, not restrict competition," it added. Copper is one of 30 critical minerals identified by India in 2023 and demand within the country is expected to double by 2030. The domestic supply is dominated by Hindalco Industries , Vedanta, Adani and the state-owned Hindustan Copper . Imports in the country have surged since 2018 after the closure of Vedanta's domestic Sterlite Copper smelter. Japan accounts for about two-thirds of India's refined copper imports, followed by Tanzania and Mozambique. Among the 10 foreign suppliers who have secured the certification under the new rules, seven are from Japan, two from Malaysia and one from Austria, the Indian government's reply said. Bombay Metal Exchange President Sandeep Jain told Reuters last month that the trade body was "compelled to seek judicial intervention" as the government did not defer the implementation of the quality control orders, and the measure had led to supply shortages. (Reporting by Arpan Chaturvedi, editing by Ed Osmond)
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
If Meta Is A ‘Monopoly,' Why Is Mark Zuckerberg Offering ‘Big Bucks'?
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from the heads of the largest tech firms on the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media. (Photo by) Business monopolies don't need to compete. Why should they compete when they're already monopolies? Why indeed. It's a question worth asking in consideration of the FTC's lawsuit against Meta, one that accuses it of having acquired monopoly dominance of the social media market through its past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The seemingly obvious reply to the FTC is what an odd lawsuit considering the myriad internet locales to access, including social media giants like YouTube and TikTok that Meta does not own. Which is the initial point. No doubt Facebook itself is the most visited of the various social media sites, but its very ubiquity ensured more competition for eyeballs. This included the arrival of YouTube and TikTok, along with former unknowns like Instagram and WhatsApp. Far from a monopolistic move, Facebook's acquisition of both was an admission that tomorrow in business is another century. For Facebook to have sat idle, enjoying the ubiquity of – yes – Facebook, it would have set itself up for obsolescence. Notable about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his operation of what is now Meta, the name change itself is evidence that there are no monopolies in business sectors defined by dynamism, but there are formerly great businesses that are formerly great because they didn't evolve. In other words, Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp weren't monopolistic simply because so-called 'monopolies' don't sell for $1 billion and $19 billion in the world's most competitive, dynamic sector. Which means Facebook and Zuckerberg's purchases were attempts to keep Facebook great in a marketplace that routinely and ruthlessly puts former greats out to pasture. Crucial about Zuckerberg's keen eye for what's ahead is that markets, stock markets in particular, are a bit impatient. Wise as Zuckerberg's acquisitions have at times been, tomorrow in business is once again another century. Which presumably explains a recent Wall Street Journal article about Zuckerberg, and how he's said to be 'spending his days firing off emails and WhatsApp messages to the sharpest minds in artificial intelligence.' Which is the point once again: business success of the kind that Facebook and Meta have had isn't a path to monopoly, it's the path to the opposite of it. Translated, commercial achievements are the instigators of exponentially more investment in competition meant to create a future that will look nothing like the present. Having discovered a huge market need for online community, Mark Zuckerberg set the stage for the arrival of many would-be Zuckerbergs eager to improve on his own achievements. In other words, it's not enough to be right once, twice, or many times. To remain relevant in business sectors defined by dynamism, you must be right over and over again. Which explains the headline of this opinion piece, along with the Journal report indicating that Zuckerberg is spending 'Big Bucks' to try and lure world-class talent to 'a new Superintelligence lab he is putting together.' Precisely because AI is poised to profoundly change how we work, and what we do at work, it will surely change how we interact with technology, including social media. Which is why the FTC should drop its lawsuit in hasty fashion. To suggest that the lawsuit is a look into the past insults understatement, and in the process calls into question the worth of the FTC. Evidence supporting this claim can be found in understanding better how Mark Zuckerberg is spending his days. Stated simply, monopolists aren't offering 'big bucks.' They don't need to.
The Independent
4 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Why it's time you got off Google and used a different search engine instead
It may seem like a faint memory now, but there was a time in the not-so-distant past when Google wasn't as synonymous with search as it is today. Even after its launch in 1998, kids of the dial-up generation fired up – not Google – posing queries to Jeeves, a digital butler named after PG Wodehouse's fictional character. But soon enough, the newer, cooler search engine, which now comes under the umbrella company Alphabet, began to dominate the market – the word 'Google' even became a verb, demonstrating its popularity. And not without good reason. Beyond serving users the most accurate results of any of its counterparts, it also had a user-friendly interface and crushed its rivals by being the best product available. Sure, habit and marketing spoke for a big portion of its user base, but people weren't forced to use it – even if they were using Google-driven kit, such as the Android operating system or a Chrome browser. Fast-forward to 2025, though, and Google not only makes up around 90 per cent of searches in the UK, the landscape is more than a little different to what it was – so much so that watchdogs around the world are questioning how the American firm has managed to monoploise the market, and whether it is right for one company to wield such power. The UK's Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) is not only proposing that more be done when it comes to diversifying search results and surfacing businesses and publishers more (over the years Google has implemented various search engine results page (SERP) features which deincenitivise click-through and encourage more time spent on, well, Google – it's latest being AI-generated content), they are also suggesting the tech giant gives users a 'choice screen'. What does that mean, exactly? And will it be as irritating as that cookies notice that crops up every damn time you go online? Perhaps. When I probed the CMA, I was pointed to yet more dense regulator-speak in its documents. But essentially, it could mean a pop-up at point of access, asking whether you actually want to use Google or an alternative, such as Bing or DuckDuckGo. It's been years since I've used anything other than Google, but for the purpose of this piece, I road-tested some of those alternatives, typing in: ' Personal Independence Payment '. Although all three platforms served the website first, interestingly Google's competitors also placed Citizens Advice much higher and de-prioritised news stories about coming changes to PIP. And as someone who is disabled and highly invested in this topic, I found the latter to be more relevant to my search intentions. The results screens on these alternatives were also a good deal cleaner, and DuckDuckGo, in particular, highlights its promise to protect users' privacy and not track them across the web. If data protection is your thing (I know I'm keen on it), it is a product worth trying. True, Google is still the kingpin and can pose real problems for businesses that are heavily reliant on it – a tweak of the algorithm can wreck a business's revenues. The CMA might also be right to worry about Google's ads revenue and how this, too, creates less room for healthy competition. Looking at ways to give firms more power and reducing bias in search results are admiral goals that most people can get behind. But does that mean people will make the switch to other platforms? As Google's global search market share dipped below 90 per cent in the final three months of 2024, there is already some promise that its reign of supremacy is diminishing – arguably users are getting fed up of ads, often incorrect AI results, and the website they're actually looking for being buried on the page. It, therefore, could be possible that this problem ultimately fixes itself. I'm not sure… but I know I for one will start diversifying which search engines I use – and how I use them.
Washington Post
5 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Compass files lawsuit against Zillow over private home listings policy
Real estate brokerage company Compass has filed a lawsuit against Zillow over its policy to ban private home listings. In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Compass claims that 'Zillow has sought to rely on anticompetitive tactics to protect its monopoly and revenues in violation of the antitrust laws.'
