this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1238 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
6873 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (16 children)

Not sure where you're getting the idea that there would be thousands. But as for the shitty part, it's already shit. Google's search engine utterly fails at it's job, and not just because of the rise in LLM/SEO. They waste billions on fancy new AI searches that nobody wants, they accept bribes to get pages to the top of the search, and even when you're looking at an actual for real result, it often isn't even what you want.

When a critical industry fails to do its job, it is time to nationalize it. With that said, the criticality of search engines is debatable. I'm cool with breaking it up at a bare minimum. The list of corps in need of getting broken up is way to long.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (15 children)

The idea stems from the propaganda tool that would be if it were state owned. Other countries would seriously discourage or ban its use, but as it is useful they'd need a replacement. Hence a thousand shitty ones.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 children)

The idea stems from the propaganda tool that would be if it were state owned.

How is it not currently a propaganda tool? It's owned by shareholders like blackrock and vanguard. At least with it being nationalized it's possible to control it democratically.

Our options are:

  • An open source nationalized search engine (which would promptly run into problems with SEO, because anybody could see what would get their site the #1 spot). This option can't honestly be called propaganda, because everyone would know what weights if any are placed on results.
  • A blackbox search engine that has been nationalized, with limited ability of the people to know/modify the algorithm, which could be called propaganda, especially if this is controlled by a failed democracy.
  • A blackbox search engine owned by the likes of blackrock and vanguard, with no ability to democratically modify the algorithm

None of these options are good, but the third is clearly the worst. The rich should not dictate what results pop up.

Other countries would seriously discourage or ban its use, but as it is useful they’d need a replacement. Hence a thousand shitty ones.

There is only ~200ish countries out there depending on how you count it. Most of them share search engines across borders, and that is unlikely to change, because if they were to see a nationalized search engine as a security problem, they would have already seen google as a security problem. So even if every third country made their own, there would only be a few dozen search engines.

But even assuming there would be 1000 search engines, 1000 shitty search engines is better than 1 shitty search engine with 85% market share. At least with the 1000 shitty engines there is competition. As of now, google is free to mess around with their black box engine however they like, showing and hiding what they like, all at the behest of blackrock, vanguard & company.

So I don't see how this would be to everyone's disinterest. Killing google and nationalizing it is exactly in everyone's interest. Though like I said, the criticality of search engines and therefore the need for nationalized search engines probably isn't there.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just because the U.S. is a joke of a democracy doesn't mean democracy as a whole is a joke.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

A constitutional republic is not mutually exclusive with democracy.

This is like saying "it isn't a car, it's a vehicle". No shit it is a vehicle, but the type of vehicle is "car".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don’t count on people who never breathe through their nose to look deeper than what some personality on YouTube said. They don’t care about definitions, they just hear words and repeat them without looking any further. Like happy little dumb parrots. Some jackass said, “we ain’t no democracy, wurr a cawn-stuh-toosh-uhnool republic!” and they said, “huht huht! That’s right!” without bothering to learn what a constitutional republic is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Oh I know, I'm right there with you. But I get a level of entertainment out of it.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)