4 ms·

>It's sad that your quality of life depends on Google or Facebook services. Offhand the parent post would require me to give up Google Search (including via DD

>It's sad that your quality of life depends on Google or Facebook services. Offhand the parent post would require me to give up Google Search (including via DDG), Gmail, Google Cloud, AWS, Amazon, Zappos, Audible, Comixology and Woot Shirts. I barely use Facebook or Twitter but the rest would lower my quality of life (and not just due to the large drop in employment opportunities I could take).

illustriousbear 6y ago
Sure but there are plenty of perfectly acceptable alternatives to those services.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Which are, to me, of lower quality. Thus lower quality of life. Not zero quality of life. Just lower.
  - illustriousbear 6y ago
    To me they are close enough to not mind. Especially when considering the unethical nature of these businesses and how they abuse their power. That ties into the quality of the platform and it is alarming that some people will tolerate it for some comfort.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    It's really not. Google.com is still there. You can use the alternatives 99% of the time and get what you're looking for. Google itself is not a perfect algorithm. It's exploitable, censorable, etc. It doesn't always find what you're looking for. You shouldn't ever limit yourself to a single search engine, honestly. I think YouTube is a far stickier service than Google Search, just because it's acted as an informal video archive of the past 15 years of internet video history. But I fully recognize the risks with this monopoly structure in place and have started to embrace alternatives like https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/ and https://rumble.com/ https://rumble.com/. It's time to disentangle from monopolies. Take your digital sovereignty back.
crumbshot 6y ago
> Google Search (including via DDG) DuckDuckGo doesn't use Google Search, so you'd be okay there.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  It does if you do '!g' which most people do a lot as the Bing results are often crap.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    No that just ends up redirecting your browser to google.com with the search query, it's equivalent to going there and typing it in yourself. Which if you were to give up Google Search, is something you wouldn't be doing (or would have blocked).

illustriousbear 6y ago

Sure but there are plenty of perfectly acceptable alternatives to those services.

marcinzm 6y ago
Which are, to me, of lower quality. Thus lower quality of life. Not zero quality of life. Just lower.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  To me they are close enough to not mind. Especially when considering the unethical nature of these businesses and how they abuse their power. That ties into the quality of the platform and it is alarming that some people will tolerate it for some comfort.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  It's really not. Google.com is still there. You can use the alternatives 99% of the time and get what you're looking for. Google itself is not a perfect algorithm. It's exploitable, censorable, etc. It doesn't always find what you're looking for. You shouldn't ever limit yourself to a single search engine, honestly. I think YouTube is a far stickier service than Google Search, just because it's acted as an informal video archive of the past 15 years of internet video history. But I fully recognize the risks with this monopoly structure in place and have started to embrace alternatives like https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/ and https://rumble.com/ https://rumble.com/. It's time to disentangle from monopolies. Take your digital sovereignty back.

crumbshot 6y ago

> Google Search (including via DDG) DuckDuckGo doesn't use Google Search, so you'd be okay there.

marcinzm 6y ago
It does if you do '!g' which most people do a lot as the Bing results are often crap.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  No that just ends up redirecting your browser to google.com with the search query, it's equivalent to going there and typing it in yourself. Which if you were to give up Google Search, is something you wouldn't be doing (or would have blocked).