- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Will DuckDuckGo eventually destroy Google in search?
I'm very glad to see DuckDuckGo doing so well recently. I highly recommend using it when you want your searches to be private. It's a much better option than Google, Bing, Yahoo or some of the other better known search engines. |
|
|
Comments (20)
Won't the gun be displaced ?
Displaced? No, just added to the list. There's nothing a bureaucracy likes more than more work to do. Bigger staff, larger budget, they win!
And eventually the staff gets so big that nothing gets done at all...
...yeah, right.
...yeah, right.
Did you see that study about effectiveness of the NSA mass surveillance efforts?
Negligible.
Negligible.
> And eventually the staff gets so big that nothing gets done at all...
Except when some politician wants to make an example of someone.
Except when some politician wants to make an example of someone.
A wonderful quote from the British mocumentary series, "Yes, Minister":
"We have the press office to advertise their occasional successes, and the Official Secrets Act to cover-up their daily mistakes."
"We have the press office to advertise their occasional successes, and the Official Secrets Act to cover-up their daily mistakes."
Nope.
Next question?
I can't even click a link like this.
If Google weighs the same as a DuckDuckGo, then it's made of wood!
And therefore...?
And therefore...?
As DuckDuckGo gets bigger it will need to generate more income and then and only then can it be judged against the likes of Google.
The tagline "Don't be evil" is easy to adhere to when you are small. When you have investors and financial backers trying to keep everyone happy is a lot more difficult
The tagline "Don't be evil" is easy to adhere to when you are small. When you have investors and financial backers trying to keep everyone happy is a lot more difficult
It's even harder when your business model is predicated on spying on your users, in order to make use (directly or indirectly) of their personal info and meta-data.
I never doubted that the Google founders meant it, when they came up with that slogan -- but I also think there's an inherent contradiction between that motto and that business model.
I never doubted that the Google founders meant it, when they came up with that slogan -- but I also think there's an inherent contradiction between that motto and that business model.
I think there's an inherent contradiction between that motto and the term "public corporation."
> I think there's an inherent contradiction between that motto and the term "public corporation."
You wouldn't think so, given that public corporations are owned (in theory) by the "public", but it does seem to turn out that way, doesn't it?
You wouldn't think so, given that public corporations are owned (in theory) by the "public", but it does seem to turn out that way, doesn't it?
I think this is a good place to mention "The Iron Law of Oligarchy".
jdixon wrote:You wouldn't think so, given that public corporations are owned (in theory) by the "public", but it does seem to turn out that way, doesn't it?
Well, public corporations are available to the public, not really owned by the public. They are owned by people who have the money to buy shares. The problem lies with the fact that once a corporation goes public, it's sole concern becomes to produce money for the shareholders, and money makes a lousy point of reference for a moral compass.
Quoting:once a corporation goes public, it's sole concern becomes to produce money for the shareholders
Whether the corp stays private or becomes public has no bearing on profit motive. The proper question is whether the corporation was organized as a for-profit or not-for-profit entity.
> Well, public corporations are available to the public, not really owned by the public.
Given the diffuse ownership of most large corporations (including public mutual funds, the funds in 401K plans, and pension plans), it's probably close enough to being "owned by the public" that it should have the same effect. I think the most recent figures I saw said that well over 50% of the public owned stock in either a direct or indirect fashion. Ah http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-l... says in 2011 it was 54%, the lowest since 1999. That it doesn't work that way points to a breakage in the theory. Which admittedly isn't that surprising.
> The problem lies with the fact that once a corporation goes public, it's sole concern becomes to produce money for the shareholders.
Shareholders at many companies only wish that were the case. :) Just to use one example, if Microsoft were even primarily (much less solely) interested in making money for their shareholders, why would they have over $80B in cash and short term investments on hand? With about 8.3B shares outstanding, that's almost $10/share that rightfully belongs to the shareholders.
Given the diffuse ownership of most large corporations (including public mutual funds, the funds in 401K plans, and pension plans), it's probably close enough to being "owned by the public" that it should have the same effect. I think the most recent figures I saw said that well over 50% of the public owned stock in either a direct or indirect fashion. Ah http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-l... says in 2011 it was 54%, the lowest since 1999. That it doesn't work that way points to a breakage in the theory. Which admittedly isn't that surprising.
> The problem lies with the fact that once a corporation goes public, it's sole concern becomes to produce money for the shareholders.
Shareholders at many companies only wish that were the case. :) Just to use one example, if Microsoft were even primarily (much less solely) interested in making money for their shareholders, why would they have over $80B in cash and short term investments on hand? With about 8.3B shares outstanding, that's almost $10/share that rightfully belongs to the shareholders.
Quoting: once a corporation goes public, it's sole concern becomes to produce money for the shareholders
People say that a lot, like it is a law with the implication that dirty tricks and shady dealing are required. I'd like to see some actual references and citations.
jdixon wrote:Shareholders at many companies only wish that were the case. :) Just to use one example, if Microsoft were even primarily (much less solely) interested in making money for their shareholders, why would they have over $80B in cash and short term investments on hand? With about 8.3B shares outstanding, that's almost $10/share that rightfully belongs to the shareholders.
Well, my statement was perhaps an oversimplification. The sole purpose of the corporation becomes to increase the value of the company. Also, the people with a controlling interest in the company generally approve of how cash is handled.
DrGeoffrey wrote:Whether the corp stays private or becomes public has no bearing on profit motive. The proper question is whether the corporation was organized as a for-profit or not-for-profit entity.
Actually, it does have a bearing. Private corporations are usually owned by a much smaller group of people than public ones, often including the founders, or the descendants of the founders. The top management and the owners are often the same people. That makes the corporation a more personal entity, and the decisions are more about the morality of the people involved. They can be just as bad as public corporations, but it's about the people in charge.
Really, I should clarify, because when corporations tend to become immoral isn't technically about when they become public. It's technically about when the people who care about the company name are no longer in charge, or more specifically, when there is a dissociation between the people who run the company and the people who own it. Of course, there are companies that operate in a cutthroat manner while the original owners are still in charge. Microsoft is a perfect example of this. They did a lot of shady things while Gates was still in charge.
Why this works out to be the case is because of the dissociation between management and ownership. That is the point at which the corporation becomes impersonal and money becomes the overarching motive behind how the company is run. That's the point at which the people who will do anything to get to the top end up in charge.
I've actually been surprised by the number of people I've run into in forums that think there is nothing wrong with this, and it's exactly how corporations are supposed to work.
> ...or more specifically, when there is a dissociation between the people who run the company and the people who own it. ... Why this works out to be the case is because of the dissociation between management and ownership.
I agree that seems to be the point at which the actions of companies becomes problematic. Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions as to how best fix the problem. And no, it's not the way corporations are supposed to work.
I agree that seems to be the point at which the actions of companies becomes problematic. Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions as to how best fix the problem. And no, it's not the way corporations are supposed to work.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
And we can only trust DuckDuckGo by what they say ! Could it be that it's a honey pot service ? People feel secure there but everything may be silently logged as elsewhere, and shared with spy agencies without any gun.
Paranoid ? But have not modern communication channels driven us to be so ? May be it's not technology in itself, but the worst part of the human being expressing itself.