Post #1385006

2022-12-19 18:14 UTC

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri The easy example of this is AMP. If this had been produced by some kind of elected governing body for search, we'd all be expecting them to be kicked out. But not only is the responsible "party" still there, the specific people who caused that harm didn't face any consequences for it. I'm not (at all) saying that we should have an electoral system, just that if key parts of the Web have the accountability of post-Brexit Britain, it's a problem!

Replies (2)

@robin@mastodon.social 2022-12-19 18:25

@michaelchampion @cdub @danbri Part 3, societal impact. Search is an editorial ranking of content — in fact the editorial decisions are the whole point, it's supposed to be opinionated, not random. Having an excessively dominant source of editorial decision-making is unhealthy for a society. A dynamic like the browser/search feedback loop that mechanically leads to search concentration is a problem for society. Browser UX that favours generalist search over verticals makes this even worse.

Open ##1385007
@michaelchampion@indieweb.social 2022-12-19 19:24

@robin @cdub @danbri 1. I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing. My main pushback is to "someone has to be doing the centralising." It's abstract social and economic (and maybe system) dynamics that drive centralization. If Google someone decided to stop pursuing centralized solutions, someone would step in and rebuild their empire. That's pretty much the argument in Tim Wu's book The Master Switch https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/194417/the-master-switch-by-tim-wu/

Open ##1385019