[vouaobrasil]

That is definitely true about search. Google ruined it, like they ruin most things. The more hand-curated style of the old Yahoo was far superior. Yes, Google was superior in search in the short-term, but their automated algorithms came with the inevitable attachment of the future of gaming their algorithms. The modus operandi of Google is to provide a highly-centralized automated service that at first appears superior, but in reality is just a mechanism of arbitrary wealth concentration through advertisements.

Of course, AI is going to make matters much worse, and already is in fact. It's the supercharger for corporate greed.

The solution would be to impose limits on the internet. The combination of the internet and large corporations is a disaster, so we need to limit large corporations. `Free' services from Google, Apple, and Microsoft must end, and corporate activity on the internet must be severely curtailed. AI companies should be dismantled and forced into bankruptcy.

Even if the resulting internet were much slower and with less shiny goodies, it would be far better for the people without corporate involvement.

[sanitycheck]

I agree, somewhat. Wikipedia is hand-curated and it works.

Perhaps it's time for a new DMOZ/ODP type effort from Wikimedia/Mozilla/similar.

[api]

“It will be gamed. No exceptions.”

Any designer of marketplaces, search, social anything, laws and regulations, etc needs to remember that principle. Any system will be exploited for its edge cases and emergent behaviors if there is any profit of any kind (even just attention or lulz) in doing so.

[vouaobrasil]

Yes but the incentive to game something is significantly reduced if it is not fast, not centralized, and doesn't have a large audience.

You cannot deny that having a huge, million+ global audience makes gaming MORE lucractive. With small, indepedent websites, none of which have a massive audience, gaming and scams are much less worth a scammer's time.

[Dalewyn]

>The more hand-curated style of the old Yahoo was far superior.

You say hand-curated, I say political manipulation.

The motives of 1990s people and 2020s people are very different.

[nathan_compton]

What would a non-manipulated search result page look like? What kind of business process would produce such a thing and how would we know what was objective anyway?

[ejb999]

results are still manipulated for political purposes - it is just automated now instead of manually done.

[grackledozer]

Is this satire?

[vouaobrasil]

No. I simply believe that the internet would be superior as a basic service with very limited corporate involvement. I believe the internet would be superior if it were like a basic, government-supplied service so that websites would be created by individuals, and small to medium-sized businesses. It would be more democratic, and it would not have the same problems created by massive networks. No Twitter, no Facebook, no Google.

Yes, we would not have certain "cool" features like Google Earth, but I still think the world would be superior without large-scale corporate involvement and without AI-created pure trash.

[executesorder66]

Are you aware that nothing is stopping you from only visiting websites made by individuals, and medium-sized businesses? In fact, you can also choose to use cool things like Google Earth, AND choose not to use shit things like Twitter, Facebook, Google Search etc.

[vouaobrasil]

Are you aware that I am not talking about my personal well-being, but the well being of society? I've never had a Facebook, and in fact I visit maybe 3-4 internet sites. I don't engage much personally as I think most of what is on the internet is garbage.

What I mean to imply is that large corporate internet activities are detrimental to society. If all I cared about was myself then I would not even be typing now at all. But I have seen many people negatively affected by corporate internet manipulation and I think it's a bad thing.

[executesorder66]

The same applies to everyone else. Nothing was stopping them from using the crap bits of the internet, yet they did it anyway because that's what they chose to do.

The same applies to literally anything: food, exercise, etc. people choose the worse option because that's what they prefer. If you take that option away from them, then they will choose some other, similarly crappy option.

The problem is not that people have options, and some of the options are crap.

The problem is that people are physically and mentally lazy (I include myself in this), and will tend to choose the easier, but crappier option most of the time. How do we fix human nature? I don't know, but taking away people's choice isn't going to help the matter.

[vouaobrasil]

That's rather defeatist, isn't it? People choose things in the way you describe because they are playing the prisoner's dilemma.

Actually, taking away people's choice does help: that's called government regulation. You can't open a factory and dump mercury waste in the water in the U.S. because there is regulation. And regulation has existed in much stronger forms in the past in various guises, such as with native societies and the Amish.

So yes, taking away choice helps. We need to take away the choice to pollute, to use AI, and to form large corporations. It will help and make everyone's lives better.

[TomSwirly]

> Are you aware

Few sentences that start with this clause are emitted in good faith, and yours is certainly not one of them.

[executesorder66]

I am aware.

[TomSwirly]

Translation of what you wrote: "I don't like what you wrote but I can't see how to refute it either."