yes, and the solution is some sort of govt arbiter board that has a massive job to do censoring the internet.

i get that its a problem of sorts, but the solution seems to be as anti-libertarian of a thing i can think of.

what is your end game here hoss?

I really don't see anything major coming of this. Google will get a fine, then continue their practices unhindered. At most, I could see them splitting Google and YouTube into separate companies.

Why is it a problem if the national conversation is altered? That happens every day.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 21 2020 09:07am

Side note, we as people are fucking warped. At almost any given time If I were to look at the trending tab on YouTube i feel immediately disgusted.

IPhone 12
IPhone 12
IPhone 12
IPhone 12
IPhone 12
IPhone 12
IPhone 12

"the box is really nice"

I bought 2 Million BLANK and this happened
I spent X money for BLANK


This post was edited by SBD on Oct 21 2020 09:15am

Ask fender's grandpa what's wrong with steering the national conversation.



Open the source for the algorithm to public scrutiny, tbh.

Steering the national conversation has always happened. Why is this different?

(I'm generally in favor of more strict enforcement of anti-trust laws. I'm giving you a chance to make your case on this specific issue)


If they opened the source algorithm it would be all but useless. Modern algorithms for huge projects like google are mostly AI, which can't be deciphered even by those who created it because it is dependent on the training process and available data. It's a scientific process in itself to get any insight into why an AI makes its decisions.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 21 2020 09:32am

Yeah but that algorithmic explanation will be subject to the same left/right bias anything is. it's just a bunch of zeros and ones, and when someone explains what "get:batch, sysrend2 storgage >>> aNlor k12" or whatever is in there is we'll get a bunch of bullshit and/or legit justifications.

also what is considered a trade secret here? is google required to publish and republish every day as they make advancements?

id be all for an algorithm i could curate for myself, add or remove interests for ads, etc. but a machine gets me to buy stuff more effectively, so google doesnt want that.



because a newspaper isnt the same as the internet/computers.

duh. seriously tho, its clearly not the same as historical issues.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 21 2020 09:32am

Do you believe that the government should get involved to control the national conversation instead?

This is starting to sound like something china would approve of.

Government should get involved to protect other companies and it's citizens from anti-competitive practices.

Google is not just another private company, I think we've talked about this already. They are the de-facto directory of the world with more than 90% of all US and global searches happening on Google. When you reach such monopolistic levels you have to either prove impartiality or you need to break up that monopoly.

It's like if 2000 years ago some company decided that they will hold the keys to all of the libraries, city squares and public markets. Then some low iq proponent says well you could always go 10 miles outside the city gates and set up a table and sell your fruit or voice your opinion.

And tbh these are the limitations of libertarianism. The logical conclusion is always going to end up in some monopoly of power if left unchecked.

But I'm not having to go 10 miles out of town. I'm having to type "duckduckgo" instead of "google".

It's super easy to access competitors.