this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
1068 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

60073 readers
2973 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
1068
Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
182 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] poopsmith@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

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.