Let say government nationalise google search or force to make it a non profit 15 years ago. How would that prevent SEO from happening? Isn’t SEO an inevitable outcome of website trying compete for attention? How would anyone prevent it from happening?
>Isn’t SEO an inevitable outcome of website trying compete for attention?
different Search engines with different rules and so forth would lessen the benefit of the O part, because it seems unlikely you could efficiently optimize for every particular algorithm and ruleset.
Perhaps SEO is an inevitable outcome of one big dominant search engine and also made worse by that search engine not really giving a shit about making its search work that well for years and years but only about how many ads they could push at people and how much they could charge for those ads.
I agree with your assessment that maybe this is an inevitable outcome of one big dominant search engine.
But I would argue one big search engine is unavoidable since no one would want to use the second best search engine.
Google search didn’t come the best because the other service like mail map and YouTube. So breaking up Google does nothing to stop google search from being the monopoly it is today.
If different search engines optimized for different niches, there would be an user base for "second best" search engines. For example, nothing beats Bing for porn search.
While I don't have the answer, what we might consider is the incentives that come with each model.
In the current model, the incentives are clear. Google's incentive was to rent-seek all usefulness out of web search, privileging advertisement and their own profitability over usefulness.
I am not sure if a search engine beholden to the government would be ideal. Governments do have their own sets of interests (legitimate or otherwise) that may at times go against users.
Web search is in the end a piece of public infrastructure, used by billions across the world, very much subject to the Tragedy of the Commons.
Perhaps it should be some sort of nonprofit, as other projects are (Linux Foundation comes to mind, being a successful one).
> Let say government nationalise google search or force to make it a non profit 15 years ago. How would that prevent SEO from happening? Isn’t SEO an inevitable outcome of website trying compete for attention? How would anyone prevent it from happening?
I've said this before (on HN) and I'll say it again: a search engine that refuses to index sites containing advertisements absolutely kills off SEO.
What's the point of getting to the top of the search results if you are unable to monetise it?
The only way forward is to refuse to index sites with advertisements. Google will obviously not do this (and, in fact, to me it looks like they do the reverse - downrank non-monetised content - because it's in their best interest to serve sites with ads).
The same way people make adblockers happen. By making block lists of SEO garbage cruated by human beings.
Nextdns and the RPi alternative do it. Kagi has all the infrastructure in place to make it happen at the search level, it just requires more manual work right now.
What power? The power to push a github commit? That’s up to each blocklist owner.
There is no one list to rule them all. Tons of people curate their own block lists and make them available. It’s entirely up to you to pick and choose which ones you want to use that most align with your views on SEO garbage. You can override them with your own preferences too, as I do all the time with NextDNS. Like I said, all the infrastructure to support this is already in place in Kagi, they just need to implement the support for external lists.
As a full-blown queer autonomous neo Marxist, I own my own f*** company.
Have done so for 5 years now.
We pay all workers their fair share of the socially necessary production time. If the organization needs surplus to invest in equipment, we requisition it from the production with consensus from the workers.
I had to kick a number of capitalists to the curb to achieve this. Why? Cuz they wanted to exploit workers, and they wanted me to do it for them.
Get lost!
You can get paid the full value of your work, if you seize control of the business. Just don't be a wimp, and out maneuver the pudding headed capitalists who know no actual economics or category theory, lol. It's f*** easy.
It supports queer and neurodiverse inclusivism and intimidates anti-queers. The pillars of fully automated luxury gay space communism are inclusivism, intersectionalism, open source, and taking control of the assets of capitalists through automated and communal asset seizure mechanisms.
Even if only queer inclusivists join the movement, we can still win. But if anti-queers infiltrate the movement, then it's in trouble. So I aim to make anti-queers feel very unwelcome, and also see the movement as absurd. That's why I integrate the queer identify into my business theory and revolutionary theory.
>We pay all workers their fair share of the socially necessary production time.
What is a "fair share"? Suppose we're in a SaaS business. Does someone working in customer support earn more or less than a SWE? What makes the difference (or lack thereof) fair?
>If the organization needs surplus to invest in equipment, we requisition it from the production with consensus from the workers.
What is a "consensus"? What if 2/3rds of the people want to invest but the other 1/3rd doesn't? Would they forced to contribute? Are how are you going to "out maneuver the pudding headed capitalists" if you can only seek to raise capital from your employees?
Many businesses know how much they'll lose if they don't do customer service, and know how much they'll lose if they don't do software engineering. But most businesses keep those factors hidden from the customer service and engineers. And they try to give as little as possible to both, and give as much as possible to investors and executives. You're okay with that, but don't think it could be any other way. Why?
Just calculate your opportunity costs, talk about it transparently, and negotiate socially necessary contribution factors for each department and each role. And sure, there will be departmental politics as each department tries to argue that it's much more critical to the business than another. But with openness, that's much better than that absolute f*ery we see in most companies. In most companies only the executives have access to that level of information, and everyone else is f*ed.
Consensus means everyone agrees or nothing happens. My team is four peeps, and we're pretty good at persuading each other into consensus, especially since we're open about our profit sharing and tend to make good cases for our initiatives. If we can't all agree then we don't do it, and just live with it.
And the pudding headed capitalists are gone. I took them to the curb with a number of maneuvers that I might want to write up one day, but may not have been strictly legal. And even with all of that, I tried very hard to accommodate them. But they burned me, and I went nuclear. Things were much better after then.
Once you no longer have any exploitative extractive sunnuvab**es around, you think they're going to make money just by having money, it's pretty easy to be open and honest, and reason through things.
>Many businesses know how much they'll lose if they don't do customer service, and know how much they'll lose if they don't do software engineering. [...]
>Just calculate your opportunity costs, talk about it transparently, and negotiate socially necessary contribution factors for each department and each role.
How does this work in practice? Going back to the SaaS company example, the company arguably wouldn't exist without SWEs, but could theoretically limp along by ignoring all customer support tickets (see: google). Does that mean the opportunity cost is 100% for SWEs and therefore they should get 100% of the revenue?
>Consensus means everyone agrees or nothing happens. My team is four peeps, and we're pretty good at persuading each other into consensus, especially since we're open about our profit sharing and tend to make good cases for our initiatives. If we can't all agree then we don't do it, and just live with it.
That works well with a small team where you're all friends, but how do you prevent bad actors from using their veto powers from sabotaging the group? eg. hungary and poland abusing their veto powers to block proposals that all other EU members support? As the group gets bigger the chance that you have a bad actor is going to increase.
>And the pudding headed capitalists are gone. I took them to the curb with a number of maneuvers that I might want to write up one day, but may not have been strictly legal.
That doesn't answer my question. You're at a capital disadvantage because you can only raise capital from employees and only if they all agree. That might be fine for a capital light companies like a consultancy, but you can't possibly expect the workers at a nuclear plant to stump up the entire construction cost of the plant.
Sorry, the truth is I don't have very good answers for how to manage large asset industries except to smash their assets and raid whatever value we can, and shift them into community trusts and small cooperatives.
I'll attempt to think of a model for
1) A fully open source saas that needs ethically sourced capital to build a data center
2) A community that needs capital for a nuclear power plant
I'm not entirely sure that we can't just obligate Capital holders to give the capital to the workers. So for example in the case of the nuclear power plant where the workers are to stump up the capital, they could visit the estates of the wealthy people living in the area, and requisition the capital. That's kind of like taxes. Or a protection racket.
In the interest of the conversation, I will try to think of strategies that don't involve violence or refactoring of the rule of law. But keep in mind that significantly limits things.
Is this the leftist version of American exceptionalism? I often find myself baffled by the claim that something common in most of the word like standardised testing as “white” or “racist”.
If you live in suburban and commuting to downtown for work, large part of the driving would be high way. Having hybrid makes way more sense in this scenario.
If you live in downtown, you probably don’t need a car or you are parking in a underground parking lot that does not guarantee you a charging plspot
Sure. Common Chinese factory workers live in 6-12 people dormitory. Homeless people get evicted from the capital city. Major city have rule in place to prevent non local people buying property,
Let’s do that.
This isn't true. 10GB is the limit on docker backed lambda function sizes. Layers are capped to 256MB just like lambda functions.
A couple of weeks ago, I tried to deploy a lambda function that created Azure Subnets in python, and the Azure client was 265GB alone. My layer creation api call failed because of this.
