5 ms·

Accepting this is setting a precedent that you're happy for companies with a lot of power to have efficient systemic influence. This has already (it's barely be

Accepting this is setting a precedent that you're happy for companies with a lot of power to have efficient systemic influence. This has already (it's barely been 10/20 years) started to influence the outcome of elections. Literally the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. And you're saying you don't care.

nickelpro 6y ago
Information distributors do more than influence elections, they completely control them. Walter Cronkite impeached Nixon, Pulitzer and Hearst started the Spanish-American war, and FAANG companies, directly or indirectly, nudge the needle on elections. I don't see how Google is unique or notable in this regard.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  It's not unique in this regard, therefore it doesn't matter? Is that your argument? Also, comparing the relative power of newspaper men to Google doesn't make much sense.
  - nickelpro 6y ago
    >It's not unique in this regard, therefore it doesn't matter? Is that your argument? Yes. Any group that controls information distribution controls what we know about the world. By controlling what we know about the world, they control politics completely. This is axiomatic, there is no way around it, you can't personally observe everything that happens therefore you must have it reported to you. The person or people doing that reporting control your worldview. Google isn't bad for playing a role in that information economy. >Also, comparing the relative power of newspaper men to Google doesn't make much sense. You're right, the newspaper and television men of yore were far more powerful than Google is or ever will be. More Americans watched Cronkite than watch all evening network news combined today, and 70% of the people who watched him trusted that his was factual reporting. No news source in the world today has that kind of trust, definitely not Google.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      > Yes. Any group that controls information distribution controls what we know about the world. By controlling what we know about the world, they control politics completely. I agree, so I want to deny as much information and power to powerful institutions as possible and diversify my relationships with them such that it becomes less likely that any one could become the Kingmaker.
- raspyberr 6y ago
  With standard media because of its mass audience nature, it's easier to see how they influence people. The mass acceptance of the internet has started to push traditional media out but replaced it with incredibly personalised and thus a more effective version that is yet to have proper legal regulations in place. My personal thing with Google and "convenience" is that the convenience is with just a low barrier to entry. Once you set up your own workflow with "Google alternatives", the convenience factor disappears.
EugeneOZ 6y ago
They don't need to know about your habits to have such influence.

nickelpro 6y ago

Information distributors do more than influence elections, they completely control them. Walter Cronkite impeached Nixon, Pulitzer and Hearst started the Spanish-American war, and FAANG companies, directly or indirectly, nudge the needle on elections. I don't see how Google is unique or notable in this regard.

ciarannolan 6y ago
It's not unique in this regard, therefore it doesn't matter? Is that your argument? Also, comparing the relative power of newspaper men to Google doesn't make much sense.
- nickelpro 6y ago
  >It's not unique in this regard, therefore it doesn't matter? Is that your argument? Yes. Any group that controls information distribution controls what we know about the world. By controlling what we know about the world, they control politics completely. This is axiomatic, there is no way around it, you can't personally observe everything that happens therefore you must have it reported to you. The person or people doing that reporting control your worldview. Google isn't bad for playing a role in that information economy. >Also, comparing the relative power of newspaper men to Google doesn't make much sense. You're right, the newspaper and television men of yore were far more powerful than Google is or ever will be. More Americans watched Cronkite than watch all evening network news combined today, and 70% of the people who watched him trusted that his was factual reporting. No news source in the world today has that kind of trust, definitely not Google.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    > Yes. Any group that controls information distribution controls what we know about the world. By controlling what we know about the world, they control politics completely. I agree, so I want to deny as much information and power to powerful institutions as possible and diversify my relationships with them such that it becomes less likely that any one could become the Kingmaker.
raspyberr 6y ago
With standard media because of its mass audience nature, it's easier to see how they influence people. The mass acceptance of the internet has started to push traditional media out but replaced it with incredibly personalised and thus a more effective version that is yet to have proper legal regulations in place. My personal thing with Google and "convenience" is that the convenience is with just a low barrier to entry. Once you set up your own workflow with "Google alternatives", the convenience factor disappears.

EugeneOZ 6y ago

They don't need to know about your habits to have such influence.