8 ms·
The Luddites Warned Us About Google
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- foxyv 3y agoThey also warned us about cars and oh boy did they hit the nail on the head with that one...
- jankyxenon 3y agoAre you being cheeky - I can't tell. Many people would argue that cities developed after the advent of the car are not as livable as cities developed before cars.
- foxyv 3y agoI am not being sarcastic. I honestly think that cars have ruined our cities and wrecked our culture. Luddites were honestly right about cars. Ray Bradbury was way too prophetic for comfort!
- ChatGTP 3y agoCars or self-driving cars ?
- foxyv 3y agoI don't see a huge improvement when it comes to self-driving. They have all the same problems of their manual counterparts. They are loud, big, and dangerous.
- jpsouth 3y agoOn a complete tangent, your last sentence was quite jarring to read (at least for me). I couldn’t work out what was wrong for a minute or two, but it’s the order of your adjectives. > They are loud, big, and dangerous To me reads easier as > They are big, loud, and dangerous Not nitpicking or trying to correct you, just a bit of personal commentary on the matter.
- volfied 3y ago> But it isn't. There's a rule. The rule is that multiple adjectives are always ranked accordingly: opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose. https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/sentence-order-adjectives-rule-elements-of-eloquence-dictionary https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/senten...
- jpsouth 3y agoI based my comment off the Cambridge dictionary, which specifies the order as > Opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type and purpose I think loud is a physical quality, and big is the size so I think the ‘more valid’ way is the latter that I posted, isn’t it?
- foxyv 3y agoThis is why I love Hacker News. Thousands of experts in thousands of topics. (Not sarcasm)
- jpsouth 3y agoHaha, I’m absolutely no expert. My knowledge is broad, but far from deep. I like the saying ‘I know enough to be dangerous’, it perfectly suits me. I agree with the general sentiment though, it’s why I come here too. That and the fact it’s a significantly healthier replacement for discussion than Reddit ever was.
- nashashmi 3y ago> The Luddites warned us about Google. Too much power in too few hands leads to bad outcomes for everyone: first for workers, then for customers, then for the industry itself. The article argues this is the problem that regulators are having to grapple with and finally have found ways they can interfere in. I just don't know how many tools and weapons they have in their arsenal to legally counter such commercial centralizations. I also don't know if there was sufficient advantage to decentralizing 10 years ago. And I don't know if we have exhausted the advantages in last ten years, such that no further benefits are to be had.
- 4star3star 3y agoI'm stunned that Apple collects $19 billion per year from Google to simply set Google search as the default on Apple devices.
- jqpabc123 3y agoYes, the biggest privacy invader on the planet effectively purchased a monopoly on Apple devices.
- neodymiumphish 3y agoIt's just the default. Can't users change it? It's only "effectively a monopoly" because there's no interest among users in changing it.
- jqpabc123 3y agoGoogle pays Apple $20 billion a year to avoid competition and maintain a monopoly on Apple devices. The fact that Apple users don't know any better doesn't change this.
- neodymiumphish 3y agoThere's two choices. Either they set a default, or they make the user choose which engine to use. If they set a default, whoch is obviously the preference from a seamless experience perspective, how should Apple decide which engine to default to? The obvious answer is let search providers bid. If Google were paying Apple to keep other options off the platform, that would be a different story, but it's not a monopoly when a user continues to drive to the closest gas station despite there being an alternative right next door...
- jqpabc123 3y agoBad analogy. A gas buyer is still making a choice. Google pays Apple to eliminate the need for choice. And Apple users are accustomed to choices being made for them.
- bryan_w 3y agoSounds like a cult.
- oldbbsnickname 3y agoAlthough the Unabomber also correctly identified systemic problems anti-efficiency, anti-technology, and/or terrorism are absurd, immoral, and untenable reactions to antitrust, profiteering, automation, and/or worker exploitation. One prescription, although not a panacea, is profit-sharing, worker-owned co-ops of tech workers. Confederations of co-ops by tech trade or area could rival or supplant MAANGs but without the perverse incentives of publicly-traded companies and their defenestration of ethics or mercurial abandonment of valuable employees.
- valiant55 3y agoWhat problems do you think co-ops would meaningful address? Don't the perverse insentives still exist? Only who benefits changes.
- oldbbsnickname 3y agoI don't understand your question. Co-ops led by other values other than treating customers as the product to exploit. Do you not understand democratic socialism?
- chii 3y ago> Do you not understand democratic socialism? i only understand that a system which require altruistic behaviour will not be stable.
- valiant55 3y agoYeah, that was kind of my point in asking the question. Handing over companies to the employees might improve conditions for the employees but it does little to change any profit incentives they have. We need regulation and/or other external factors that force the fiduciary duty of companies (whether they be private/public/co-ops) to prioritize health, well being, privacy and the environment of both the employees and the customers.
- surge 3y ago