Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#211

Post by root_axis »

ffpip wrote: post #4
coder1001 wrote: post #2

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anything stopping anyone from starting a new (better) search engine, and promoting it like crazy? Maybe even pay users a portion of the ads revenue for using the new search engine? I understand there are economies of scale here, but if a few investors got together what's to stop them from achieving this?

The reason Google is because of their AI. And the reason their AI is good is because of the massive amount of data they collect by violating privacy. No other company can start right now. Their search engine is years of efforts of collecting every user's data in Chrome for determining 'freshness', page rank and other related stuff.

The quality of google search is good for consumers, it also isn't anti-competitve to improve the quality of your product, even if you're using resources and knowledge from unrelated businesses to do so.

Re: United States vs. Google

#212

Post by orhmeh09 »

alexashka wrote: post #208
edgyquant wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe IQ is a relevant metric to determine ones ability to be informed politically.

You don't 'believe' an IQ range of 20-34, labelled as 'severely retarded' [0] is relevant to one's ability to be informed? https://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

You're putting words into that poster's mouth as you shift the goalpost, but an IQ of 20-34 isn't especially common as IQ is not distributed uniformly. You might have a hard time being informed with a 34 IQ but that applies to all matters. IQ isn't designed to assess political competence nor even one's ability to be informed. Politically it's pretty irrelevant.

Re: United States vs. Google

#213

Post by drak0n1c »

munk-a wrote: post #162
bastardoperator wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't bat an eye? Healthcare has been the largest debate in this country for the last 8 years.

Yea - but the majority of Americans want a policy like what Sanders was offering (Medicare for All) and neither major political party is on board with it - that's sort of par for the course of how US policy decisions look like - generally the US has gone with policies that don't actually gain majority support instead favoring the will of special interest groups.

To clarify, people polled were specifically in favor of adding a public option, not so much for regulating or abolishing private options.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-t...

Re: United States vs. Google

#214

Post by Aunche »

tehjoker wrote: post #180
mdoms wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

This is just blaming individual consumers for the fact that there is concentrated power that benefits from minor choices people make in mass, the kinds of choices that are easily manipulable by adding or removing friction to various choices. We don't have strong enough democratic social and labor movements that can move the needle yet. If we abandon the individualistic frame, we begin to see the necessity of joining…

Nobody is "blaming" individual consumers. They're just respecting their free agency. Most people who purchase from Amazon prefer it to brick and mortar stores and other e-commerce websites. Most people who work at Amazon fulfillment centers willingly accept higher expectations in exchange for better pay. You don't get to decide whether someone is being coerced or manipulated.

Re: United States vs. Google

#215

Post by TuringNYC »

205guy wrote: post #188
deelowe wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also for youtube, how many people are now able to make a living producing content which they fully own and have control over the means of distribution?

I love the fact that the Youtube ideal has let independent creators make so much good content for the world. And after some haggling, Youtube has let the creators retain full ownership. But the various de-monetization and search algorithm changes show that Youtube retains full control over distribution (and ability to make said living). The creators are totally at the mercy of Youtube and their advertising. Imagine i…

>> Imagine if there were Utube, Vtube, and Wtube, and a creator could shop around for the best placement and ad deal.

Except there is already a Utube, Vtube, and Wtube and they have been around for 50 years. They are called ABC, NBC, CBS, and there are also like 50 others.

You can "shop around" your product to them, but you have to:

1. Have to gone to the right schools to meet decision makers

2. Have the right connections

3. Not be a minority (there is literally almost no diversity in the industry amongst decision makers.)

I publish on YouTube. There is no way I could publish on ABC, NBC, CBS, Disney, or almost any other broadcast service. Even though I meet criteria 1 (ivy league degree), I dont have the connections and "dont have the look"

Before we burn down YouTube, can we step back and consider how much YouTube has enabled people? Can we also see the very obvious ulterior motive the MSM has to dislike YouTube?

Re: United States vs. Google

#216

Post by pythonaut_16 »

205guy wrote: post #188
deelowe wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also for youtube, how many people are now able to make a living producing content which they fully own and have control over the means of distribution?

I love the fact that the Youtube ideal has let independent creators make so much good content for the world. And after some haggling, Youtube has let the creators retain full ownership. But the various de-monetization and search algorithm changes show that Youtube retains full control over distribution (and ability to make said living). The creators are totally at the mercy of Youtube and their advertising. Imagine i…

But a creator can? There's Vimeo, Twitch, and Patreon to name the big ones that come to mind.

Youtube has real issues with de-monetization and search algorithms that should be addressed in some way, but I don't see how it's anti-competitive that they have built a platform that attracts tons of viewers, nor that they've found a way to monetize those viewers.

Re: United States vs. Google

#217

Post by mdoms »

nunez wrote: post #194
mdoms wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

Name another company _that is not Walmart_ that can deliver most of the items I want or need (or, hell, anything that I can think of) next day without paying exorbitant shipping fees and I'll switch to them right now.

Yes this is the convenience I am talking about. Not everything needs to be delivered to you, much less "next day".

Re: United States vs. Google

#218

Post by exmicrosoldier »

munk-a wrote: post #145
sudosysgen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

IMO democracy isn't working in the US since the political parties were whittled down to just two actors and they realized they can just fight over social issues and have nearly identical stances on economic issues. This is one of the reasons I've been advocating hard to keep IRV in my local district (Chittenden County VT) and why I'm so happy to see Democrats, Republicans and Progressives all competing in the electio…

The first, hardest duopoly to fix in the United States is the two party system.

Re: United States vs. Google

#219

Post by ehsankia »

rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

Most of your non-internet examples are fairly accurate, but

> control the flow of every single bit of information we see and hear online

That has to be a gross hyperbole, right? Realistically I highly doubt it even comes close to 50%

Re: United States vs. Google

#220

Post by vishnugupta »

sudosysgen wrote: post #126
thayne wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

I'm just grappling with the question. How can we call this democracy if most Americans want many extremely important things for decades and they don't happen? Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

> Isn't the point of democracy that the people have power?

Over last few decades the democratically elected government has been retreating from providing public goods and services. It may or may not have been meticulously engineered but the US is now at a point where just about every aspect of services and goods has been privatised.

It is assumed, at least as per the PR, that free markets are more effective and efficient than elected government in discharging public goods and services. And the government's role has reduced to maintain the quality of the USD currency. Housing, , health, transportation, education, law enforcement, national security and military, public safety -- just to name a few -- have all either been fully privatised or almost there.

Given this, to what extent can public influence the way things are run? The public get one chance in five years to choose a government which has anyway privatised much of its functions. To add to that the political parties get non-trivial funding by these private corporations.

Post reply on HN