• emmy67@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              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”.

              • theangryseal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 days ago

                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.