The US v. Google antitrust case may be frustratingly shrouded in secrecy, but occasionally we get some fun nuggets. The quote above comes from an internal email sent by Google’s Jim Kolotouros, VP of Android Platform Partnerships. “Chrome exists to serve Google search,” he writes. “If it cannot do that because it is regulated to be set by the user, the value of users using Chrome goes to almost zero (for me).”
So, you’re okay with being under the control of a company only showing you what they want.
What I want is no Russian trolls or misinformation, so yes.
So, you are okay with your search provider deciding what is misinformation and what is not.
Seems like a slippery slope to me.
As long as they’re objectively deciding then yes. There really isn’t a decision to be made; information is either misinformation or not misinformation. There is no grey area for subjectivity. There is no room for opinion or interpretation. As long as they maintain a track record of being objective then it’s good.
Considering how far gone people hopped up on misinformation have become over the past decade, you’re looking in the wrong direction about where the slippery slope is.
There are simple, objective standards to suss out good information from bad. We have seen that people are simply not good about filtering it out for themselves and will fall for misinformation purposefully if it serves their prejudices. Why not have an independent body verifying if information is worthwhile or not?
All the people who bring up this nonsense are usually the types who are mad stuff like “COVID is a liberal hoax” is being suppressed.
When they are objective and transparent about it, then yes.
Nope!