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.
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 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.
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 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
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.
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 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
It’s because these things work by probabilities. Generally when you think of older people who aren’t working as IT professionals, you wouldn’t expect them to be great with computers - and you’d probably be right.
Do you really think that a judge that taught himself to code would be common-place and would be the norm? That judge is awesome, but he is very clearly an outlier lol
The article you link says the judge already knew how to code beforehand.
He’s been coding in BASIC for decades, actually, writing programs for the fun of it: a program to play Bridge, written as a gift for his wife; an automatic solution for the board game Mastermind, which he is immensely fond of; and most ambitiously, a sprawling multifunctional program with a graphical interface that helps him with yet another of his many hobbies, ham radio.
“At some point, I looked at the BASIC book and decided I would learn that.” He taught himself straight from the book, which he recalls was “pretty straightforward.”
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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 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.
How can anyone make a judgement about something they know nothing about? We are so doomed.
As if this has doomed humanity before.
Judging without knowing has been practically sport for most of humanity’s history.
removed by mod
Oh for sure. I was just pinpointing the fatalistic reaction.
|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.
Allow me to introduce ‘I have problem with The Google’.
E: wording.
So true
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
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 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
Knowing how to code doesn’t mean you know the difference between a search engine and a web browser.
It’s because these things work by probabilities. Generally when you think of older people who aren’t working as IT professionals, you wouldn’t expect them to be great with computers - and you’d probably be right.
Do you really think that a judge that taught himself to code would be common-place and would be the norm? That judge is awesome, but he is very clearly an outlier lol
The article you link says the judge already knew how to code beforehand.
Yes, because he taught himself.
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:
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.
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.