[stcredzero]

Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps?

Those aren't the reason why some people are down on Google. The damage that they're doing to the public discourse is one of the things that concerns people.

[Nasrudith]

That is a very strange charge against a search engine - frankly it sounds like the sort of thing that would get the same jury which sentenced Socrates to hemlock to cry bullshit.

[stcredzero]

Socrates was saying things people didn't like. Google is hiding things they don't like, and trying to make it seem like people like other things more.

[Nasrudith]

Ah that charge - not liking that their bubble isn't universal and declaring "No it is the children that are wrong and declaring Google is rigged against them.

Blaming them for the state of society is sheer scapegoating as frankly society can and has fucked itself up far more without any outside involvement. It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellous when it is really the result of development of agency,nand finding the framework they are under constraining, and discontent with choices made for them.

They get shit no matter what they do directionality. If they let algorithms guide it pure they are "promoting radicalization" by trying to serve the user with engagement. If they hide disturbing suggested searched they are "censorsing". The true purpose isn't to be satisfied but to try to bully for control.

The whole damn point of a search engine is to prioritize.

[stcredzero]

declaring "No it is the children that are wrong and declaring Google is rigged against them."

The kids are alright. There are Google whistle-blowers coming forward to about Google's manipulation, and there are internal documents corroborating this.

It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellious when it is really the result of development of agency

No, it's like calling out the media trying to push that narrative.

The true purpose isn't to be satisfied but to try to bully for control.

Bingo! So the solution is just to let people have their speech.

The whole damn point of a search engine is to prioritize.

When it helps things go viral that people want to see, this is being done correctly. When it's pushing an agenda, even though what's being pushed doesn't have traction, for the sake of ad dollars, and to prop up dying industries, then this is corruption.

[Nasrudith]

What "whistleblowers"? Proven liar and manipulative editor, felon, and direct cause of a spree shooting James O'Keefe and his mark of inaccuracy Project Veritas?

As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.

[stcredzero]

What "whistleblowers"? Proven liar and manipulative editor, felon, and direct cause of a spree shooting James O'Keefe and his mark of inaccuracy Project Veritas?

The object of the 1st fragment is not the same as the person described in the 2nd fragment.

As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.

It's one thing to "not spread" something. It's another thing entirely when there are people who want information, even want to pay for it, and big companies get in the way to push their own agenda. It's not just the most radical segments this applies to, but lots of normal people nearer to the center. Also, it's really something that big companies do this, all the while claiming they're "platforms" not "publishers."