Technology

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

It is somewhat, but it's not as bad as if it was run by Trump and co.

Which is how x would become the whole internet.
Which is why the best option. Which you didn't include, is splitting Google up. Split the advertising from search. This is the surest way to make them cater to us. Especially if we can force them to compete with other search engines.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

but it’s not as bad as if it was run by Trump and co.

The U.S. isn't a functioning democracy though, which is why that's a problem. And just because a nationalized service is controlled democratically doesn't mean it is controlled by a president. There are a lot of different ways to have democracy.

And we no longer live in an era of horse and buggy, so democracy can be far more direct than it has in the past.

In addition, there is already a multitude of positions filled/appointed/approved by the president. The administrator of NASA, the administrator of the EPA, etc. There is nearly 500 federal agencies like this.

So this would not be a problem unique to a nationalized search engine. So the solution is an actual democratic control of these agencies/administrators, not a wanna be dictator.

Another thing to keep in mind, what I'm proposing is something that would only ever work in an actual functioning democracy. So therefore I am not proposing this within the U.S.

Which you didn’t include, is splitting Google up

As I said, I think it is debatable if a search engine is even critical enough to warrant nationalization. I don't think the need is there. And as I (admitted retroactively edited my comment to say), I have previously stated that I'm totally cool with breaking up Google at a bare minimum. The rest of this is just about the hypothetical of nationalization.

Split the advertising from search.

Short of publicly funding private companies, this would just result in a subscription model, which nobody wants. It's either ads, subs, or public subsidization.

This is the surest way to make them cater to us.

It's a half measure. The only real way to make them cater to us (aside from previously mentioned nationalization) is regulation, workplace democracy, and so on.

Even if Google got turned into a small company that only ever does search, they'll still be a business running under capitalism, with all of the profit seeking motives that got us to where we are now.

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think what we're running into here, is that you want to talk about removing capitalism. Which I'm all for, in the context of a functional democracy. Which isn't the case in the US or anywhere in the world.

Until we know what that looks like, and its parameters you won't admit how bad nationalising a search engine is without other privately owned alternatives.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

is that you want to talk about removing capitalism.

I'm all for removing capitalism, but that's not really my aim in this discussion. I was more interested in the difficulty/value of nationalizing something like a search engine.

and its parameters you won’t admit how bad nationalising a search engine is without other privately owned alternatives.

Given the popularity and successes of NASA, the USPS, NOAA, etc, I think you are being overly pessimistic.

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Given the popularity and successes of NASA, the USPS, NOAA, etc, I think you are being overly pessimistic.

None of those things are direct propaganda tools.

The second they start having to put maga posters into you mailbox and nobody else's you'll see it differently.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

None of those things are direct propaganda tools.

To you they aren't, but to the right wing they are.

The second they start having to put maga posters into you mailbox and nobody else’s you’ll see it differently.

We are already at risk of that. I don't see what your point is.

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

To you they aren't, but to the right wing they are.

I'll need some sources on that one.

We are already at risk of that. I don't see what your point is.

Then this conversation is pointless if you won't acknowledge the risk of it

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I’ll need some sources on that one.

I'm speaking from past experience here. I've had conversations with right wingers where I've brought up NASA articles about how one of their satellites is tracking climate change. And often times it's met with "well that's just want the government wants you to think", or "that's from NASA and therefore it's propaganda.

On a more personal level, my mother is a lunatic anti-vaxer. She treats the CDC and FDA like they're straight out of 1984. She always either ignores shit from the CDC/FDA, tries to establish them as liars/frauds, etc.

I don't exactly go around saving screenshots of conversations with right wingers, nor do I record arguments with my mother. And none of this lends itself to being easy to track on a search engine (esp given how shitty they are nowadays. That brings us full circle lol).

So take my word for it or don't, I don't care.

Then this conversation is pointless if you won’t acknowledge the risk of it

There is risk associated with everything. You can't have public policy without risk. You can't have a president without risk. You can't have a government agency without risk. So what's your point?

parent

[–] ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Lol.. Democratically.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

parent

[–] ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

*Constitutional Republic.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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".

parent

[–] theangryseal@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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

parent

[–] CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

How would there be thousands? There aren't thousands of nations, and everyone would still use Google.

If you break it up, that's how you get thousands of shitty versions.

Maybe some countries might disable Google if it was owned by the US, but I have a feeling those countries already have their own issues with Google as it stands now.

I just think if the monopolistic corporations are too big and too essential to take down, then nationalization is a solution with many more positive traits than negative.

parent

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

That hasn't been the case if you look into what happened with Microsoft and browsers.

The other thing is

everyone would still use Google.

Is actually wrong, and what they proved with the antitrust case itself. A huge chunk of the anticompetitive activity was Google paying to be the default because people don't change the default.