4 ms·

Google works because it is a monopoly. All human eyeball traffic goes through Google. It is in their interest to keep destroying the open information marketpl

Google works because it is a monopoly. All human eyeball traffic goes through Google. It is in their interest to keep destroying the open information marketplace because then advertisers are forced to buy through Google. (Much easier and more profitable than trying to make a good adtech product.)

panarky 2y ago
Competition is just one click away. As others in this thread already point out, it's extremely easy to use DDG or Bing if you want.
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  > Competition is just one click away. As an illusion sure, in practice not really. I use Kagi, I bought the family plan so I could try convining my family to use it, did they? No. Did my family want to use Signal for messaging? No. Do my friends want to use something else than Discord for communicating with me? No. Competition exists and in plenty but folk are too mind sucked to want to move platform. If its not broke, why change? People don't want to change. And until such platforms close their gates or whereby something new comes along that isn't a clone; there will be no shift.
  - thegrimmest 2y ago
    Doesn't this just mean that the vast majority of users don't care enough about these sorts of things? Doesn't that mean that the market is working? If switching cost > perceived benefit why should we expect anything other than status quo? When a truly innovative platform that offers benefit > switching cost, users will naturally flock to it. We're already starting to see that with ChatGPT.
    - MereInterest 2y ago
      > Doesn't this just mean that the vast majority of users don't care enough about these sorts of things? Doesn't that mean that the market is working? No. Network effects mean that there's not only a high cost of switching away from the largest network, but there's a high cost to use anything other than the largest network. When that bias exists, you cannot infer any preferences from market outcomes.
      - thegrimmest 2y ago
        OK so innovators have to provide an option where: benefit > switching cost + network cost This has repeatedly been demonstrated as large networks have been disrupted. Folks switched away from MSN Messenger and MySpace didn't they?
  - skydhash 2y ago
    Lead by example, not by preaching. And taking a stance. You won’t find me on any social media other than Linkedin and Twitter. And on those, I no longer post or interact with people. I keep Twitter because of announcements and Linkedin as a public CV. I also use WhatsApp because alternatives are not really viable (but I reduced its social aspect as much as possible). You’re free to make your choices. Just don’t complain about it, if you won’t heed my advices.
    - doublerabbit 2y ago
      Your still part of the problem regardless if you use the services or not: the fact is these corporations are so ingrained with the weedy roots, you can't. Google is testing on those as we test on animals. ML for only search? Naw. If everyone turned off their droid, stopped using their email, switched to Firefox, they would still be on top. Yes. It's better not to, and if your going to preach, yeah. As I use no services other than Signal but we are still just pawns in this game. We are a just pittance of income of those who are keeping the empire's on top. And who do you run too? DDG is owned by Apple so your only fuelling their empire. This goes deeper than you could imagine.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  No. Google owns your phone and your browser, your email, your video feed and often your office productivity tools too. All human eyeballs go through Google's advertising network first. (Unless you're an Apple-only person.) So for advertisers it makes no sense to budget anything but Google first and foremost. Maybe they'll add some Bing-Yahoo if they have spare money laying around and want to catch the remaining couple percent of the audience. P.S. Search is only a small part of Google's advertising network, and not the most important one nowadays.

panarky 2y ago

Competition is just one click away. As others in this thread already point out, it's extremely easy to use DDG or Bing if you want.

doublerabbit 2y ago
> Competition is just one click away. As an illusion sure, in practice not really. I use Kagi, I bought the family plan so I could try convining my family to use it, did they? No. Did my family want to use Signal for messaging? No. Do my friends want to use something else than Discord for communicating with me? No. Competition exists and in plenty but folk are too mind sucked to want to move platform. If its not broke, why change? People don't want to change. And until such platforms close their gates or whereby something new comes along that isn't a clone; there will be no shift.
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  Doesn't this just mean that the vast majority of users don't care enough about these sorts of things? Doesn't that mean that the market is working? If switching cost > perceived benefit why should we expect anything other than status quo? When a truly innovative platform that offers benefit > switching cost, users will naturally flock to it. We're already starting to see that with ChatGPT.
  - MereInterest 2y ago
    > Doesn't this just mean that the vast majority of users don't care enough about these sorts of things? Doesn't that mean that the market is working? No. Network effects mean that there's not only a high cost of switching away from the largest network, but there's a high cost to use anything other than the largest network. When that bias exists, you cannot infer any preferences from market outcomes.
    - thegrimmest 2y ago
      OK so innovators have to provide an option where: benefit > switching cost + network cost This has repeatedly been demonstrated as large networks have been disrupted. Folks switched away from MSN Messenger and MySpace didn't they?
- skydhash 2y ago
  Lead by example, not by preaching. And taking a stance. You won’t find me on any social media other than Linkedin and Twitter. And on those, I no longer post or interact with people. I keep Twitter because of announcements and Linkedin as a public CV. I also use WhatsApp because alternatives are not really viable (but I reduced its social aspect as much as possible). You’re free to make your choices. Just don’t complain about it, if you won’t heed my advices.
  - doublerabbit 2y ago
    Your still part of the problem regardless if you use the services or not: the fact is these corporations are so ingrained with the weedy roots, you can't. Google is testing on those as we test on animals. ML for only search? Naw. If everyone turned off their droid, stopped using their email, switched to Firefox, they would still be on top. Yes. It's better not to, and if your going to preach, yeah. As I use no services other than Signal but we are still just pawns in this game. We are a just pittance of income of those who are keeping the empire's on top. And who do you run too? DDG is owned by Apple so your only fuelling their empire. This goes deeper than you could imagine.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
No. Google owns your phone and your browser, your email, your video feed and often your office productivity tools too. All human eyeballs go through Google's advertising network first. (Unless you're an Apple-only person.) So for advertisers it makes no sense to budget anything but Google first and foremost. Maybe they'll add some Bing-Yahoo if they have spare money laying around and want to catch the remaining couple percent of the audience. P.S. Search is only a small part of Google's advertising network, and not the most important one nowadays.