Firefox

Sure, and I would expect to see the Safari changelog when I launch Safari. But I get it when I upgrade my OS, and Safari (in my eyes) isn't an OS feature.

But if its updates are packaged with the OS updates, it makes sense for its changelog to be shown alongside the rest of the OS update.

Google advertises its products on its search page [...] So what exactly is the proposed change? Do we block advertising for other products if you have a certain share of the market?

Yes. And the percentage of the market share is already defined in antitrust law.

In my mind, "monopolistic behavior" means doing something to undermine competition.

Such as using your monopolistic position in Search to push your browser?

If you're merely pushing your own services and not interfering with other options, I don't think that's anti-competitive.

How isn't it? How is that fair competition?

For example, is Valve's pushing of its Steam Deck on their store anti-competitive? Valve is dominant on the PC gaming market

Perhaps. But it's also worth remembering that Steam is literally Valve's store, of course they sell steam decks there.

People go to storefronts with the explicit intention of buying things. I don't go to a search engine or email client with the expectation of having popups telling me to install a browser.

If I went onto Google's storefront, I wouldn't be upset about them selling Pixel phones there. I'd expect that their store would have their products for sale.

I get it, Google is bad

Nonono. No. I know your angle here, and it's a clever one, but I'm not falling for it.

Don't attempt to reduce my argument against abuse of market position to being some kind of fanboyish "hur dur Google bad, amirite guys?" - that's not my argument. I've explained what my argument is.

but what exactly are they doing that's bad that should be restricted?

As stated, they're abusing their monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage that cannot be achieved by their competitors.

What exactly should the law look like?

The same as it is now, just actually enforced.

We can't punish companies because we feel they're doing bad things

There you go again. Trying to reduce my argument to being reactionary and feelings-based. I've explained my view multiple times, and it has nothing to do with my feelings, and everything to do with abuse of market position.

AFAIK, Google doesn't meet the current standard, so what exactly should that standard be?

They definitely do, and they've got in trouble in the EU over it multiple times. Laws aren't always followed, and they're not always actually acted on by governments. Warranty void if removed stickers aren't legal, yet pretty much all devices have them, for example.