6 ms·

Absolutely love this quote from the article: > Paraphrasing Monty Python: “What has Google ever done for us?”. They have done an awful lot for society, for the

by pythux 7y ago

Absolutely love this quote from the article: > Paraphrasing Monty Python: “What has Google ever done for us?”. They have done an awful lot for society, for the web and probably saved it a few times a long time ago. But it is time to also see them as the empire they have become. And empires must fall. I think people generally do not understand well enough the far-fetched consequences of a monopoly in the search business. We really need more diversity and competition in this space, not just for quality of results and convenience of services; but for society as a whole. The article rightly points out that Google is a new "Cambridge Analytica" (even on steroids), we should not passively wait for our democracies to break down because information is controlled by a single private entity. Let's step out of our comfort zones, try new products, support the ones we like!

shadowgovt 7y ago
That was an interesting choice of paraphrase. Does the author realize it's part of a gag where the characters go on to list all of the ways that the Roman government had materially improved quality of life for the people under its rule and thereby make their rebellion seem farcical? ;)
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  Clearly the author does realise this as is evident by the rest of the sentence, which was included in the quote.
  - weinzierl 7y ago
    That doesn't make sense. In the movie the joke is clearly on Reg, the guy who says the words "What have the Romans ever done for us?". I still think the author didn't really get the joke...
    - kwhitefoot 7y ago
      They're German, many Germans are great Python fans. I think you can safely assume they have seen the Life of Brian and analysed it carefully. And yes they got the joke.
1024core 7y ago
> We really need more diversity and competition in this space, not just for quality of results and convenience of services; but for society as a whole. There are plenty of alternatives. But people don't use them as much because they are worse. Consider Bing ( http://www.bing.com/ http://www.bing.com/ ). It is backed by a company even bigger than Google. MSFT's market cap is 1.155T; Google's is 899B. MSFT is 30% bigger than Google. Why haven't they put more resources on their Bing search engine? Spend a few billion dollars, hire away some of the top search engine experts from Google, and build away!
- ma2rten 7y ago
  I have spent a few billion dollars and they were not successful.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Bing is not a core part of Microsoft’s business.
- dikei 7y ago
  Google receive over 100 Billion USD per year from ads revenue. If spending a few billion dollars can get you a new Google, then every one would have done it a long time ago.
wasdfff 7y ago
Maybe the solution is not in the free market, but by taking the background of pubmed and create a search.gov. No ads, no algorithms, no bullshit ranking and metrics, no tracking, just pure boolean search with a heavy handed spam filter and jam packed with features for the sake of utility and not engagement.
- CDSlice 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but a heavy handed spam filter is the absolute last thing I want the government to have. This basically gives the government the best censorship tool they ever had.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- biasedOpinion 7y ago
  Disclaimer: I work at Google, all opinions are my own. >just pure boolean search So if I just repeat the word Facebook a hundred times in my personal website, I'd rank higher than facebook.com when people search for "facebook"? I think simple boolean search works for things like searching books in a library, where you can assume good faith from all the authors. But in the web you can't do that. It's just too easy to game.
dewey 7y ago
> Absolutely love this quote from the article Maybe you should've disclosed that you work at this company?
JadeNB 7y ago
> I think people generally do not understand well enough the far-fetched consequences of a monopoly in the search business. 'far-fetched' (meaning implausible) should be 'far-reaching', right?
saalweachter 7y ago
> The article rightly points out that Google is a new "Cambridge Analytica"... One of the most amusing patterns, both in newspapers and on HN, is how often whenever Facebook does something wrong, the response is "this is why Facebook and Google should be regulated/destroyed/broken up".

by pythux 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

That was an interesting choice of paraphrase. Does the author realize it's part of a gag where the characters go on to list all of the ways that the Roman government had materially improved quality of life for the people under its rule and thereby make their rebellion seem farcical? ;)

purple_ducks 7y ago
Clearly the author does realise this as is evident by the rest of the sentence, which was included in the quote.
- weinzierl 7y ago
  That doesn't make sense. In the movie the joke is clearly on Reg, the guy who says the words "What have the Romans ever done for us?". I still think the author didn't really get the joke...
  - kwhitefoot 7y ago
    They're German, many Germans are great Python fans. I think you can safely assume they have seen the Life of Brian and analysed it carefully. And yes they got the joke.

1024core 7y ago

> We really need more diversity and competition in this space, not just for quality of results and convenience of services; but for society as a whole. There are plenty of alternatives. But people don't use them as much because they are worse. Consider Bing ( http://www.bing.com/ http://www.bing.com/ ). It is backed by a company even bigger than Google. MSFT's market cap is 1.155T; Google's is 899B. MSFT is 30% bigger than Google. Why haven't they put more resources on their Bing search engine? Spend a few billion dollars, hire away some of the top search engine experts from Google, and build away!

ma2rten 7y ago
I have spent a few billion dollars and they were not successful.
saagarjha 7y ago
Bing is not a core part of Microsoft’s business.
dikei 7y ago
Google receive over 100 Billion USD per year from ads revenue. If spending a few billion dollars can get you a new Google, then every one would have done it a long time ago.

wasdfff 7y ago

Maybe the solution is not in the free market, but by taking the background of pubmed and create a search.gov. No ads, no algorithms, no bullshit ranking and metrics, no tracking, just pure boolean search with a heavy handed spam filter and jam packed with features for the sake of utility and not engagement.

CDSlice 7y ago
I'm sorry, but a heavy handed spam filter is the absolute last thing I want the government to have. This basically gives the government the best censorship tool they ever had.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
biasedOpinion 7y ago
Disclaimer: I work at Google, all opinions are my own. >just pure boolean search So if I just repeat the word Facebook a hundred times in my personal website, I'd rank higher than facebook.com when people search for "facebook"? I think simple boolean search works for things like searching books in a library, where you can assume good faith from all the authors. But in the web you can't do that. It's just too easy to game.

dewey 7y ago

> Absolutely love this quote from the article Maybe you should've disclosed that you work at this company?

JadeNB 7y ago

> I think people generally do not understand well enough the far-fetched consequences of a monopoly in the search business. 'far-fetched' (meaning implausible) should be 'far-reaching', right?

saalweachter 7y ago

> The article rightly points out that Google is a new "Cambridge Analytica"... One of the most amusing patterns, both in newspapers and on HN, is how often whenever Facebook does something wrong, the response is "this is why Facebook and Google should be regulated/destroyed/broken up".