881
Google won’t comment on a potentially massive leak of its search algorithm documentation
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
881 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
60044 readers
2810 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Better than those governments having control. Ideal scenario is everything is decentralized
Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.
Because that paves a very easy path to corruption . No freaking way do i wanna live in a country where the government has absolute control over all information spread.
Don't get me wrong, fuck Google, but government control of the Internet just sounds worse
What makes governments any more susceptible to corruption than a private organization?
I'm not actually talking about governments having absolute control. That's a pretty extreme scenario to jump to from from the question of if it's better for a private company or a government to control search.
Right now we think Google is misusing that data. We can't even get information on it without a leak. The government has a flawed FOIA system but Google has nothing of the sort. The only way we're protected from corruption at Google (and historically speaking several other large private organization) is when the government steps in and stops them.
Governments often handle corruption poorly but I can rattle of many cases where governments managed to reduce corruption on their own (ie without requiring a revolution). In many cases the source of that corruption was large private organizations.
You make some good points. But consider this. This data was publicly leaked by hackers. These hackers, if we go by precedent, will probably get away Scott free. sure it was very difficult to find this data, but not impossible. On the other hand a government if faced with a breach like this, would probably find the hackers and detain them as threats to national security, as we've seen with Edward Snowden.
Though our system isn't perfect, i think that having a corrupt Google is better than a corrupt government in this case. As you said, Google can be corrupt, but the government can step in and take over, whereas, if a government decides that it's access to citizens data is important enough, they can continue with corruption with less resistance. I mean, who guards the guards right?
FOIA requests generally don't involve hackers or leaks. The act exists because citizens insisted that government provides visibility into its inner workings.
What is the equivalent for Google, or any other private company?
Did you notice the US President from 16 to 20?
Even after felony convictions, there is no accountability or consequences.
Have you seen the US Supreme Court?
Don't tell me a government has any accountability when minds are twisted by misinformation engines like Fox & Friends.
Not that a company is any better, yet alone google.
It's hard to draw meaningful conclusions form a single 4 year period. There have been several instances of corruption (and significant externalized costs) in private firms that went on for much longer than 4 years.
I agree that there is a lot of corruption in government but there's a long gap between that and no accountability. We see various forms of government accountability on a regular basis; politicians lose elections, they get recalled, and they sometimes even get incarcerated. We also have multiple systems designed to allow any citizen to influence government.
None of these systems and safeguards are anywhere close to perfect but it must be better than organizations that don't even have these systems in the first place.
I agree decentralized is better, but isn't that an argument in favor of a government having more control than a corporation?
No? What I said was "better than governments have control" how is that pro government?
you said "ideal scenario is everything is decentralized"
would it be right to assume "more decentralization is better"?
if so, then which is more decentralized: a corporation or a government
yes, what you said was paradoxical, which is why i was saying "it's actually in favor of government"
Ahh, I suppose I could see that
No it's not better.
Do you have any sort of argument for that or is it just thoughts different, different thoughts bad?