A purported leak of 2,500 pages of internal documentation from Google sheds light on how Search, the most powerful arbiter of the internet, operates.

The leaked documents touch on topics like what kind of data Google collects and uses, which sites Google elevates for sensitive topics like elections, how Google handles small websites, and more. Some information in the documents appears to be in conflict with public statements by Google representatives, according to Fishkin and King.

  • yokonzo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Better than those governments having control. Ideal scenario is everything is decentralized

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.

      • yokonzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • yokonzo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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?