4 ms·

It may be imperfect, but having a system controlled by someone you vote for and can ultimately kick out is better than having a system controlled by another cou

It may be imperfect, but having a system controlled by someone you vote for and can ultimately kick out is better than having a system controlled by another country's political apparatus.

perihelions 1y ago
I disagree. It seems clearly better, as a user, to use an uncensored, un-backdoored service based in a foreign country, then a censored/corrupted service controlled by their own country's government. The former meets the user's requirements, today; the "democracy can fix it!" one is an unrealized promise of the future. If, concrete example, e.g. Kagi doesn't censor or harvest data from or otherwise maltreat its users in any way, then what tangible benefit is it, to the European user, to avoid American-based Kagi, for so-called "sovereignty" reasons? What do they actually need, which is missing, that their democratic government can fix? For this question I'm not counting "other users are using it in a way I don't like"—I'm asking about the user themselves asking on their own behalf.
- Wilder7977 1y ago
  Kagi user here, but one could argue that there is no such thing as un-backdoored service when the US government can knock at Google's door (kagi uses GCP) and ask the data, with little to no accountability or due process. So I agree with you, but the premises are quite restrictive.
- alisonatwork 1y ago
  This dilemma might exist if Ecosia was thoroughly censored and corrupted to the point it was completely unfit for purpose, but it isn't, so for now it seems more like a hypothetical concern than a real one. What is a real concern, however, is the American government influencing world events in ways that materially harms people outside of America. That government retains its power through the ongoing global economic dominance of American companies. Ordinary people can't do much to directly affect global affairs, but they can at least choose where to spend their money, so why wouldn't they choose to spend their money with companies who aren't propping up foreign governments that harm them?
  - BlackjackCF 1y ago
    Materially harms people inside of America too.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- pyrale 1y ago
  > It seems clearly better, as a user, to use an uncensored, un-backdoored service based in a foreign country This point of view I could have understood 20 years ago, but Snowden revelations happened in 2013. Before that, US social media have always been censored according to US social norms. Uncensored, un-backdoored services from a foreign country have never existed. As for sovereignty, considering the current US admin as well as US tech barons have been pushing their horses in several EU elections, it's pretty obvious that services from a foreign country with such policies are an issue.
rdm_blackhole 1y ago
The European commission cannot be kicked out so your point is invalid.
- layer8 1y ago
  The European Parliament elects the president of the European Commission, and has to approve the commissioners of the European Commission. The European Council, who proposes the president and appoints the commissioners, is a representation of the governments of the member states, which are democratically elected as well. By electing their governments and the European Parliament, the European citizens ultimately determine who controls the European Commission, as a form of representative democracy.
  - jasonvorhe 1y ago
    Yeah, in theory ans yet, Ursel is still there so whatever.
    - layer8 1y ago
      I don’t like her either, but why do you think that’s undemocratic when a majority of the European Parliament voted for her?
      - immibis 1y ago
        Democracy is when people vote for things, not when politicians vote for more politicians
    - izacus 1y ago
      Not cow towing to you doesn't make any system undemocratic. It does make you a little tyrant refusing to recognize the will of others.
      - jasonvorhe 1y ago
        Haven't heard that so far. Made me chuckle. - le tyrant
jasonvorhe 1y ago
I haven't really seen major policy changes regarding parties of certain spectrums being voted out. In the end it all coalesces in some statist centrist plutocracy anyways.
xboxnolifes 1y ago
I'd rather use the system controlled by someone without legal jurisdiction over me than someone who does.

It may be imperfect, but having a system controlled by someone you vote for and can ultimately kick out is better than having a system controlled by another country's political apparatus.

perihelions 1y ago

I disagree. It seems clearly better, as a user, to use an uncensored, un-backdoored service based in a foreign country, then a censored/corrupted service controlled by their own country's government. The former meets the user's requirements, today; the "democracy can fix it!" one is an unrealized promise of the future. If, concrete example, e.g. Kagi doesn't censor or harvest data from or otherwise maltreat its users in any way, then what tangible benefit is it, to the European user, to avoid American-based Kagi, for so-called "sovereignty" reasons? What do they actually need, which is missing, that their democratic government can fix? For this question I'm not counting "other users are using it in a way I don't like"—I'm asking about the user themselves asking on their own behalf.

Wilder7977 1y ago
Kagi user here, but one could argue that there is no such thing as un-backdoored service when the US government can knock at Google's door (kagi uses GCP) and ask the data, with little to no accountability or due process. So I agree with you, but the premises are quite restrictive.
alisonatwork 1y ago
This dilemma might exist if Ecosia was thoroughly censored and corrupted to the point it was completely unfit for purpose, but it isn't, so for now it seems more like a hypothetical concern than a real one. What is a real concern, however, is the American government influencing world events in ways that materially harms people outside of America. That government retains its power through the ongoing global economic dominance of American companies. Ordinary people can't do much to directly affect global affairs, but they can at least choose where to spend their money, so why wouldn't they choose to spend their money with companies who aren't propping up foreign governments that harm them?
- BlackjackCF 1y ago
  Materially harms people inside of America too.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
pyrale 1y ago
> It seems clearly better, as a user, to use an uncensored, un-backdoored service based in a foreign country This point of view I could have understood 20 years ago, but Snowden revelations happened in 2013. Before that, US social media have always been censored according to US social norms. Uncensored, un-backdoored services from a foreign country have never existed. As for sovereignty, considering the current US admin as well as US tech barons have been pushing their horses in several EU elections, it's pretty obvious that services from a foreign country with such policies are an issue.

rdm_blackhole 1y ago

The European commission cannot be kicked out so your point is invalid.

layer8 1y ago
The European Parliament elects the president of the European Commission, and has to approve the commissioners of the European Commission. The European Council, who proposes the president and appoints the commissioners, is a representation of the governments of the member states, which are democratically elected as well. By electing their governments and the European Parliament, the European citizens ultimately determine who controls the European Commission, as a form of representative democracy.
- jasonvorhe 1y ago
  Yeah, in theory ans yet, Ursel is still there so whatever.
  - layer8 1y ago
    I don’t like her either, but why do you think that’s undemocratic when a majority of the European Parliament voted for her?
    - immibis 1y ago
      Democracy is when people vote for things, not when politicians vote for more politicians
  - izacus 1y ago
    Not cow towing to you doesn't make any system undemocratic. It does make you a little tyrant refusing to recognize the will of others.
    - jasonvorhe 1y ago
      Haven't heard that so far. Made me chuckle. - le tyrant

jasonvorhe 1y ago

I haven't really seen major policy changes regarding parties of certain spectrums being voted out. In the end it all coalesces in some statist centrist plutocracy anyways.

xboxnolifes 1y ago

I'd rather use the system controlled by someone without legal jurisdiction over me than someone who does.