Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

869

Joined

2 yr. ago

The “spoiler” effect argument assumes votes belong to the two major parties, but in reality, votes are earned by candidates who align with voters’ values.

No, it doesn't. The spoiler effect is about how the introduction of new candidates can change the outcome of an election, such that a previous winner loses because of the proximity of another candidate. Here is an example of it:

        Total voters: 765
    The winner was favorable to 56% of voters
    lachlan - 427
    emma - 338


  

        Total voters: 765
    The winner was favorable to 44% of voters
    emma - 338
    lachlan - 312
    omalley - 115


  

pushing major parties to address issues they might otherwise ignore

But that never happens. The two main parties always ignore everybody except for what their establishment wants for the most part. The DNC didn't learn from it's lesson in 2016, it's not going to learn from it's lesson in 2024. And the RNC is obviously even worse at learning lessons.

And for someone who doesn’t care that I don’t care, you seem to be pushing it really hard.

You're not the one I am trying to convince here.

I’m not voting for your candidate. And I won’t stop posting articles to this community. Accept it.

I do not care. I'm only here to disprove you wrong about your claims about the spoiler effect. You are wrong both on a mathematical level and a practical level.

I don't care if you don't care.

If a party is concerned, then they should get a more popular candidate.

The spoiler effect is position based, not popularity based.

The spoiler effect is position based, not strength based.

He's made his intentions to do shit like this clear on many occasions, and has built a cult of yes men around him. So either you're oblivious, lying, or misinformed.

the question it leaves unanswered is how the creator of the pirated media will afford basic necessities like food and shelter.

Under the current capitalist system, they don't. Scientists often have to pay the publisher to have their work published, often receiving nothing in return. Services like spotify pay next to nothing to creators that aren't already at the top.

There will be no solution to this problem until the underling source (capitalism) is dealt with. Piracy is just a stop gap that fucks over the CEOs and shareholders until the problem is dealt with. An before anybody brings up indy games/music/etc bought directly from the creators, that's a different story obviously.

I’ll need some sources on that one.

I'm speaking from past experience here. I've had conversations with right wingers where I've brought up NASA articles about how one of their satellites is tracking climate change. And often times it's met with "well that's just want the government wants you to think", or "that's from NASA and therefore it's propaganda.

On a more personal level, my mother is a lunatic anti-vaxer. She treats the CDC and FDA like they're straight out of 1984. She always either ignores shit from the CDC/FDA, tries to establish them as liars/frauds, etc.

I don't exactly go around saving screenshots of conversations with right wingers, nor do I record arguments with my mother. And none of this lends itself to being easy to track on a search engine (esp given how shitty they are nowadays. That brings us full circle lol).

So take my word for it or don't, I don't care.

Then this conversation is pointless if you won’t acknowledge the risk of it

There is risk associated with everything. You can't have public policy without risk. You can't have a president without risk. You can't have a government agency without risk. So what's your point?

The cultural marxists could still use bombs though. Best to switch out that bulletproof glass on all sides with concrete on all sides. Maybe a fence around it all too just to keep the terrorist leftists out. Maybe something like this?

Doesn't have to. I'm quite content with google's profits getting hurt even if it is a little bit.

Even if only a fraction of those kinds of users switch, that's still millions of users chrome loses, and no longer get to make a buck off of.

None of those things are direct propaganda tools.

To you they aren't, but to the right wing they are.

The second they start having to put maga posters into you mailbox and nobody else’s you’ll see it differently.

We are already at risk of that. I don't see what your point is.

is that you want to talk about removing capitalism.

I'm all for removing capitalism, but that's not really my aim in this discussion. I was more interested in the difficulty/value of nationalizing something like a search engine.

and its parameters you won’t admit how bad nationalising a search engine is without other privately owned alternatives.

Given the popularity and successes of NASA, the USPS, NOAA, etc, I think you are being overly pessimistic.

It should be given back to the natives, with reparations. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to remove the faces and attempt to restore it.

but it’s not as bad as if it was run by Trump and co.

The U.S. isn't a functioning democracy though, which is why that's a problem. And just because a nationalized service is controlled democratically doesn't mean it is controlled by a president. There are a lot of different ways to have democracy.

And we no longer live in an era of horse and buggy, so democracy can be far more direct than it has in the past.

In addition, there is already a multitude of positions filled/appointed/approved by the president. The administrator of NASA, the administrator of the EPA, etc. There is nearly 500 federal agencies like this.

So this would not be a problem unique to a nationalized search engine. So the solution is an actual democratic control of these agencies/administrators, not a wanna be dictator.

Another thing to keep in mind, what I'm proposing is something that would only ever work in an actual functioning democracy. So therefore I am not proposing this within the U.S.

Which you didn’t include, is splitting Google up

As I said, I think it is debatable if a search engine is even critical enough to warrant nationalization. I don't think the need is there. And as I (admitted retroactively edited my comment to say), I have previously stated that I'm totally cool with breaking up Google at a bare minimum. The rest of this is just about the hypothetical of nationalization.

Split the advertising from search.

Short of publicly funding private companies, this would just result in a subscription model, which nobody wants. It's either ads, subs, or public subsidization.

This is the surest way to make them cater to us.

It's a half measure. The only real way to make them cater to us (aside from previously mentioned nationalization) is regulation, workplace democracy, and so on.

Even if Google got turned into a small company that only ever does search, they'll still be a business running under capitalism, with all of the profit seeking motives that got us to where we are now.

The Eugenics wars were moved to 2022 through 2056 due to time travel bullshit.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

So we still got time to fuck it up.

https://www.npscoalition.org/post/fact-sheet-cost-of-homelessness

The savings/costs drastically change based on state/city. But the overwhelming majority of the time it is cheaper to do the morally correct thing of providing permanent housing assistance.

Just because the U.S. is a joke of a democracy doesn't mean democracy as a whole is a joke.

The idea stems from the propaganda tool that would be if it were state owned.

How is it not currently a propaganda tool? It's owned by shareholders like blackrock and vanguard. At least with it being nationalized it's possible to control it democratically.

Our options are:

• An open source nationalized search engine (which would promptly run into problems with SEO, because anybody could see what would get their site the #1 spot). This option can't honestly be called propaganda, because everyone would know what weights if any are placed on results.
• A blackbox search engine that has been nationalized, with limited ability of the people to know/modify the algorithm, which could be called propaganda, especially if this is controlled by a failed democracy.
• A blackbox search engine owned by the likes of blackrock and vanguard, with no ability to democratically modify the algorithm

None of these options are good, but the third is clearly the worst. The rich should not dictate what results pop up.

Other countries would seriously discourage or ban its use, but as it is useful they’d need a replacement. Hence a thousand shitty ones.

There is only ~200ish countries out there depending on how you count it. Most of them share search engines across borders, and that is unlikely to change, because if they were to see a nationalized search engine as a security problem, they would have already seen google as a security problem. So even if every third country made their own, there would only be a few dozen search engines.

But even assuming there would be 1000 search engines, 1000 shitty search engines is better than 1 shitty search engine with 85% market share. At least with the 1000 shitty engines there is competition. As of now, google is free to mess around with their black box engine however they like, showing and hiding what they like, all at the behest of blackrock, vanguard & company.

So I don't see how this would be to everyone's disinterest. Killing google and nationalizing it is exactly in everyone's interest. Though like I said, the criticality of search engines and therefore the need for nationalized search engines probably isn't there.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that there would be thousands. But as for the shitty part, it's already shit. Google's search engine utterly fails at it's job, and not just because of the rise in LLM/SEO. They waste billions on fancy new AI searches that nobody wants, they accept bribes to get pages to the top of the search, and even when you're looking at an actual for real result, it often isn't even what you want.

When a critical industry fails to do its job, it is time to nationalize it. With that said, the criticality of search engines is debatable. I'm cool with breaking it up at a bare minimum. The list of corps in need of getting broken up is way to long.

Another option if you have a laptop and desktop is to test the waters slowly with the laptop, and keep your desktop as is. It's what I did for a long while to get used to things on Linux.

If there is a critical problem with my Linux instalation on my laptop, it's OK because all the real stuff I care about is still on the desktop. So I'm free to wipe the laptop at a moments notice. It's the easiest way to learn in my experience.

Both have unique challenges, but overall brucethemoose is right about the overall cost comparison. For instance, we could easily have a "space elevator" equivalent to the bottom of the ocean, it'd be a fraction of the cost of maintaining a freight network to mars. Pressure is hard to deal with, but not as difficult as it is to get shit out of a gravity well as dense as Earth.