No? What makes you think that?

What is AI, according to you?

It’s a marketing term, aimed to create a void. So I wonder what products you think fills this void.

Gotta pretend that the rest of the world shares the same struggles as the russian population.

To get decent Google results now, I have to use the advanced search and set the timeframe to pre-2020. And then, much to my surprise, it works pretty well. The internet broke during COVID – the combination of everyone being shut in absorbing their social media echo chambers and LLMs and other generative content means you can’t find shit.

You can’t? Try using another search engines.

I’m not of the opinion google search is a good product. I understand that the law is being applied.

My position is that I’m surprised by the rule of the law, as you can apparently both be a monopoly, and have (better) products in the same field, easily available, simply because people don’t care to learn alternatives.

To me, the above is a people problem, not a technological or business (or even law) problem.

I understand that, to the law, it isn’t.

No worries, just sharing my interpretation.

I’m unfamiliar with your work, what’s the goal of it?

I’ve noticed that, instead of answering the question, this post poses different related questions and answers those.

Not quite my rethoric structure of choice.

Not using google this surprises me. Apparently, the reasoning goes as:

“[T]he material consideration in determining whether a monopoly exists is not that prices are raised and that competition is actually excluded but that power exists to raise prices or exclude competition when it is desired to do so.”

(…)

Plaintiffs attempt to prove that Google has monopoly power in the market for general search services through both direct and indirect evidence. Although they offer little direct evidence, the indirect evidence supporting the structural approach.

(…)

Notwithstanding the option to switch, the default remains the primary search access point. Roughly 50% of all general search queries in the United States flow through a search access point covered by one of the challenged contracts

I would intuitively not call google search a monopoly, as changing is so easy.

But to the letter of the law, as presented in the linked document, the majority of US citizens not thinking and chosing defaults, is sufficient.

I seem to disagree with the law.

I hope they’ll round robin the search engine selection. Confuse the hell out of those default non-thinkers.

Why did anyone join it in the first place?

Thank you, that makes much more sense. I EU too, most refugees tend to be male.

Thank you for the question. On second thought: I misunderstood

Can you elaborate? As for as I know this is about sex registred ar birth, unrelated to immigration.

Omg is there infanticide going on in qatar and the likes? Or are people not registering female births?

Please let it be the latter, as a bad solution amongst worse solutions.

Major sales, and continuing increase in sales, as well as in production of vehicles, and manufacturing, seems to happen in china (1).

In china EVs are a mass market product. In the western world it’s a luxury product, with tarrifs to keep it that way.

deleted by creator

I’m sorry your anger doesn’t allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.

I think it’s dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish “truth”, and which don’t.

To not care if the “law” applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.

I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.

Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It’s very scary, no?

Some thoughts: (1) networks don’t necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as “world wide web”

More than that. The Brazil government made it illegal for it’s citizens to access the site, as well as the use of a VPN. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil, chapter ‘Blocking’).

I think it’s a swell idea, banning your citizens from reading information you decide is wrong.

Apparently, it works by fining users that visit the site. See chapter “Blocking”.

How nice, a government that puts criminal penalties on it’s citizens reading the (according to them) wrong things. Banning technologies like VPNs.

It’s short sighted indeed.