4 ms·

If search engines were considered important enough to be a public utility, one could be funded by taxpayer dollars. Now of course, search results can be heavily

If search engines were considered important enough to be a public utility, one could be funded by taxpayer dollars. Now of course, search results can be heavily politicized, but I suppose the same is true of which books a library decides to carry.

t0bia_s 4y ago
No. We need decentralised federated solution.
dymk 4y ago
Search engines are important, but they’re funded quite well with ads, so why would anybody go through the effort to make it a public utility?
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  I suppose if the government felt that ads-supported search engines had such misaligned incentives that it would be net beneficial for society to create one without such incentives, then that might serve as a justification. I don’t actually think this is plausible, just making an analogy with say private fire departments.
- autoexec 4y ago
  So that search engines work. Google search has been crippled by ads. Sometimes people just want nice stuff and a search engine that wasn't designed to mislead (https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-search-results-ofcom https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-searc...) and where the amount of money paid doesn't dictate what is easy to find would be a great asset to everybody. No company has risen to give us a powerful search engine that isn't also a cesspool of marketing bullshit so it would be reasonable for people to seek an option that serves the interests of the public.
yonaguska 4y ago
Yeah, I just don't trust the govt to not politicize search, or at the very least, to not use search results to manufacture consent or other nefarious intentions. NPR comes to mind. With private companies, at least there's some visage of a separation from state influence although we are seeing the lash back now with Twitter.
perryizgr8 4y ago
> funded by taxpayer dollars. No thanks, I'd rather not use money coerced from innocent citizens for making a web search engine. Let's use that money for the smallest possible set of limited services.

t0bia_s 4y ago

No. We need decentralised federated solution.

dymk 4y ago

Search engines are important, but they’re funded quite well with ads, so why would anybody go through the effort to make it a public utility?

kevinventullo 4y ago
I suppose if the government felt that ads-supported search engines had such misaligned incentives that it would be net beneficial for society to create one without such incentives, then that might serve as a justification. I don’t actually think this is plausible, just making an analogy with say private fire departments.
autoexec 4y ago
So that search engines work. Google search has been crippled by ads. Sometimes people just want nice stuff and a search engine that wasn't designed to mislead (https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-search-results-ofcom https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-searc...) and where the amount of money paid doesn't dictate what is easy to find would be a great asset to everybody. No company has risen to give us a powerful search engine that isn't also a cesspool of marketing bullshit so it would be reasonable for people to seek an option that serves the interests of the public.

yonaguska 4y ago

Yeah, I just don't trust the govt to not politicize search, or at the very least, to not use search results to manufacture consent or other nefarious intentions. NPR comes to mind. With private companies, at least there's some visage of a separation from state influence although we are seeing the lash back now with Twitter.

perryizgr8 4y ago

> funded by taxpayer dollars. No thanks, I'd rather not use money coerced from innocent citizens for making a web search engine. Let's use that money for the smallest possible set of limited services.