But google is NOT a monopoly. Right?
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
315 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
3544 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m kind of conflicted about this. On one hand it’s dangerous that the public’s access to information is so tightly coupled to a single organizations decisions, and I can see the danger in Google making a change like this.
On the other hand, clickbait and SEO gaming has gone on so long that using a site like Google has become significantly less useful to actually finding information, and if a site like Kotakus traffic is down by 60% as a result—is that due to Google being dangerous, or Kotaku having a pile of garbage content meant to game the system and bring in traffic?
For what it’s worth I’m using Kotaku as an example because the article used Kotaku as an example—I have no actual opinion or evidence around the actual content on that particular site.
It's an example of why monopolies are harmful. They create distorted economies that don't serve consumers. Like ecosystems overcome by a monoculture, monopolies are inherently less resilient, less functional and prone to sudden disruption.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
This sort of thing is why Google's monopoly on the internet is so dangerous.
Because they down ranked sites blatantly shoveling shit for the sole purpose of gaming their algorithm?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because they are making so that we get less results that are just cheating the system to show up at the top?
SEO is a bastardization of a useful tool, solely meant to game the system artificially
Because they are making so that we get less results that are just cheating the system to show up at the top?
No, because they are failing to hide low quality search results. Something the would invest more money in if an alternative search engine existed.
There are so many websites now that just shouldn't exist at all. And they wouldn't exist if Google didn't send tons of traffic their way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
SEO is only feasible in the first place because we have one dominant search engine instead of a bunch of equally-prominent ones with different algorithms that would need to be optimized for differently (and maybe even mutually-exclusively).
load more comments
(9 replies)
If there were more search systems/engines there would be a wider variety of ways search results are optimized. Meaning SEO would have a greater level of diminishing returns. Having a single player creates a single point of weakness in search.
There are a ton of them, the problem is none of them are as good as google.
I hear there are good pay ones, though I have never tried one.
I can usually find what I need on google pretty damn quick, although I have seen the end page more than once
load more comments
(3 replies)
to be fair, they specifically target the way google ranks these websites. If google would rank them with less impact of what the website "bastardizes", this could be generally less of an issue in the first place.
That’s what they’re doing with this AFAICT
Well, yes, but in a broader sense, they have way too much of a stake in the control of global communications altogether. Even just a hiccup on their servers or slight change to their system has a global impact, as obviously evidenced here. The world is dangerously reliant on a centralized private company for daily functioning.
Such a powerful entity shouldn't be controlled by private parties and needs to be governed in a way that the benefit of the people is kept paramount.
So you are wanting to do what here exactly?
Not really anything to do but draw attention to it... It's not like we have an effective globally governing body to oversee something like this objectively.
No, i meant what solution would you like to see here.
Like just taking the business away from the company and have the government seize it?
Because other than just building a new one that organically grows and becomes better, then I don’t see a solution.
Maybe regulate the hell out of it, but that’s basically just seizing it and forcing them to do what you want.
I do agree it is a precarious situation though
I mean, I'm a fan of regulatory action, in the same vein as what was proposed with net neutrality originally, and dissolution of the monopoly. The services Google provides are vital to the functioning of the internet, and as such, must be treated as a governed utility the same way internet provision should be, with tight definitions of services and regulations to control what can be done and when. In that regard, companies like Google and Amazon(in regard to AWS) would be classified as utility providers similar to ISPs with the same degree of accountability in regard to service provision, availability, transparency of policy and actions, liability, etc.
In addition, break up the monopoly accordingly. Entertainment services, telephony/internet/communication services, electronics development, however it would be appropriate. Problem is how many of those services overlap and likely where they'd argue that the company can't be broken up.
Like you said, that's like seizing their business from them and it also doesn't account for global factors. However, each nation is ultimately responsible for how companies operate within their borders, internet service providers should be no different.
load more comments
(1 replies)