this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
442 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

60071 readers
3936 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Would it make the internet better? Probably.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dgmib 55 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Google isn’t the only tech giant that needs smashing into pieces, Microsoft, Amazon, Adobe, all need to be broken up. The tech industry shouldn’t be dominated by a few companies.

[–] tibi 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

~~The tech~~ industry shouldn’t be dominated by a few companies.

FTFY

[–] EnderMB 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I am somewhat biased, as an employee of a big tech company - but I am okay with them moving into different industries as long as they don't undercut while also providing just the worst employment experience of all time. It sucks to see nice startups from passionate people get steamrolled by a 100 person org full of people fearing for their job while some exec rides the coattails of their boss.

I'd be more supportive of big tech if they were nice places to work, but many of them simply aren't. They have "prestige" (whatever the fuck that means), but some of them are full of some of the most broken, beaten-down people you'll ever meet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Co-opify them, wipe equity and put the workers in democratic control of their own subunits

[–] alphabethunter 30 points 2 months ago

This article made my day a bit better. Google complaining how "radical" the changes proposed are is a sure indicator that they would likely cause some damage to them.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not sure why they mention AI search, as it's practically non-existent right now.

[–] Zeshade 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As far as I know Google and Bing return AI results just above the usual web page results.

In addition AI LLM tools like Copilot (the mobile app) and Perplexity which cite their sources with links to websites really make it easier to weed out the BS from LLM answers, if you use them carefully. In my case, these tools replace search engines in 80% of the searches that I do.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The more I run searches on Google and queries through copilot the more my trust evolves.

I use the one latched into Skype more, though.

[–] Zeshade 2 points 2 months ago

The one in Skype works quite well and is usually not blocked by companies firewalls... Or so I've heard...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If you're following citations, may as well just search for the citations themselves... aka just a regular search engine.

[–] Zeshade 3 points 2 months ago

Yes but the power of it is that you can in effect refine your search using natural language, like talking to a person, as it remembers the last 2-3 exchanges.

And it presents the information the way you asked to see it.

For example (my side of the "conversation"):

  • What is hamas?
  • Compared to Hezbollah?
  • what are the differences between Shia and Sunni?

The citations confirm the information, they are not the end goal. The added value is the fact that the information is pre-digested and presented in a way that matches my learning process. It's a lot easier for me to assimilate information by getting answers to questions that I've asked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, if search hadn't become dog shit I'd be happy with it

Instead, everything is a video for some reason, and the results are purposely worse than a year ago...I don't want to watch a video, I can read 20x faster than I can listen, I don't want to read an ad in article form - I'm generally looking for one little nugget of information

I took this into my own hands - I'll use free services if they work, but increasingly they're just demos for a product that may or may not be better. So I spun up a searx container, I point a local LLM at it, and I let it filter read through results. My next stage is to crawl documentation, use LLMs to feed it into a vector db, and use AI to retrieve exactly what I want without sifting through garbage myself

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please, DOJ, smash Google with a hammer and redistribute the pieces!

[–] stellargmite 7 points 2 months ago

Bury the ashes of the pieces in the deepest hole. We need rid of this whole concept of information being monopolized and harvested for profit.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Would YouTube get shittier if Google was broken up? I was under the understanding that YouTube is a loss leader service for Google, but I still think its one of the best social media sites on the web. Even when you consider the number of ads (that doesn't affect a revanced user).

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not neccessarily. A spun off YouTube would still have YouTube premium and ad revenue. They could also sell user data to 3rd parties (I doubt Google currently does it on a large since it's in their interest to have a better ad network than its competitiors). A move similar to Reddit's with their API and exclusive search agreement or agreements to feed certain videos to AI would both fetch a higher price and upset the quality less since the vast majorty of videos watched are found through YouTube itself.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That all sounds shittier to me NGL

[–] Cryophilia 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The idea behind breaking up a monopoly is to allow competition. So if a competitor to YouTube arises, then both companies will have to offer better service to entice more users.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How would breaking up Google break up the "monopoly" of YouTube, which is what we were discussing.

[–] Asifall 5 points 2 months ago

The argument is that google uses integration between its own ad network and YouTube to outcompete any similar service. If anyone else tries to launch a video platform and sell ad space to google, which is likely given that google owns the world’s largest ad network, it’s in googles best interest to either give their own competitor an unfavorable deal or to completely lock them out of their ad marketplace.

If YouTube and google were forced to operate as independent companies it eliminates this conflict of interest.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago

Youtube is owned by Google (technically Alphabet).

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I really would prefer them to go after Amazon and Apple before Google, or at least all of them at once.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They should practice on ISPs and other broken industries first before these level 0 bureaucrats head straight for Dracula castle after not doing their jobs for 50 years and the Bell system re-merged. Kill Verizon & atnt, for instance

[–] rottingleaf 4 points 2 months ago

before these level 0 bureaucrats head straight for Dracula castle

Rather they are buddies with Dracula, so should at least play better than this

[–] chonglibloodsport 6 points 2 months ago

They’re actually going after all of them at the same time. They’re just at different stages in each case.

[–] Cryophilia 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Man, there's such a long line of companies that need breaking up, I can't see the end of it. The entire global economy is currently controlled by monopolies and oligopolies.

[–] moonbunny 4 points 2 months ago

It’s sorta like multinational corporations can get away with their shenanigans since they don’t have to strictly abide by a nations set of rules.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So what could be better than getting started?

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 2 months ago

Agreed. Roll up the sleeves and get to work.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xylogx 8 points 2 months ago

This seems to me to be a weak substitute for good privacy regulation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

That's way too late. I have been using duckduckgo for years now and so does so many others i know. And the questions it can not answer goes to perplexity or chatgpt. The timing with this is very off, google's search monopoly is probably going to end anyways.

[–] rottingleaf 5 points 2 months ago

Them all at once.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You'd think they'd have more sophisticated remedies than cutting it up. Which won't improve anything, won't change the incentives and will eventually put us right back where we started.

I mean duck manifest v3, but the government abdicated their responsibility for 50 years and now they think they're going to save us with solutions from 1930 ? Do better you ducks !

[–] Cryophilia 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You think breaking up a monopoly won't do anything? What?

[–] chonglibloodsport 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In the long term, no. It’s a temporary measure. It’s like fighting against entropy.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Jesus Christ what a pathetic outlook.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

In countries where monopolies are forbidden, internet costs about €20 per month

I'm guessing OP is paying about $80 lol

[–] chonglibloodsport 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a Red Queen’s Race.

Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well the important thing is to make sure everyone knows it's impossible to make any sort of positive change, ever.

Clowns lol

[–] chonglibloodsport 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Whoever said anything about that? You can make positive changes, just don’t expect them to be permanent. Nothing is permanent. That’s life! Eventually we all die.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago

If you have a competent anti-monopolistic government, you can make positive change faster than the market makes negative change.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

This defeatist attitude is immature and unnecessary. Please refrain from posting such negative comments in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lol, yeah it sure worked on Microsoft.

Oh wait, they just spent the next 20 years re-consolidating.

[–] Cryophilia 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So it broke their monopoly for 20 years? That's...a lot. Imagine if we had a consistently not corrupt DOJ for 20 years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

#whoosh

See that? It was the point you missed.

The solution isn't (just) breaking up the monopolies. It's making it impossible for them to form in the first place.

[–] Cryophilia 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only thing that would prevent that is the complete end of capitalism. So you're saying there can be no good things at all, no material increase in standard of living, no wins, nothing, until capitalism is completely replaced?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, you just need to regulate who can merge with who, and when, and why. And not accept bullshit answers from executives.

You're just moving the goal-posts because you know you don't have an actual argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›