5 ms·
well articulated. if any of you google employees reading this thread, if you love open and free web, get out of google. you're part of the problem.
by lemper 3y ago
well articulated.
if any of you google employees reading this thread, if you love open and free web, get out of google. you're part of the problem.
- guessmyname 3y ago> if any of you google employees reading this thread, if you love open and free web, get out of google. you're part of the problem. Shouldn’t we give the opposite advice? To stay at Google in order to gain influence as to create initiatives to guide the company into a better direction?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- generic92034 3y agoYou will not get into such a position if you are advocating for things that harm Google's bottom line (or at least you would not stay there for long).
- scarface_74 3y agoSo how do you have “free” without ads?
- nottheengineer 3y agoYou start differentiating between free and gratis.
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd you still didn’t answer the question. What does an “open” search engine look like and who is going to pay for the infrastructure?
- ziftface 3y agoThe same way libraries are free: they're actually paid for by taxpayers. If the internet was invented in America's earlier days, a lot of these information tools would be a public service, similar to libraries, and we'd all be better for it.
- krapp 3y agoYou're under the mistaken impression that Americans like their taxes to go towards public services. Many public libraries are underfunded, and what funding they get is sometimes wrapped up in censorship laws serving an increasingly hostile and paranoid constitutency. "Public service" is synonymous with "government controlled service." Google would be no different. Forget any "innovation" any of Google's satellite projects may have had, they simply wouldn't exist, too expensive. The service would be stripped down to a bare bones minimum of functionality and farmed out to lowest-bid contractors to save money. The CIA, NSA and law enforcement would have backdoors everywhere (so no difference there), "controversial" sites would be delisted or fined (because broadcast decency laws would probably apply, and the taxpayers would insist any indecency be removed) and the whole thing would wind up privatized by the Republicans anyway, so it would still run ads at the end.
- ziftface 3y agoI hadn't thought of it that way, you're making some good points.
- scarface_74 3y agoYou have seen how governments have censored and banned books that went against their political or religious leanings? You don’t think that they would do the same thing for search engines?
- knorker 3y agoNot everyone at Google works on ads.
- superchroma 3y ago[flagged]