top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 200 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Brin now actively interfering with elections to avoid being taxed. You are the face of evil, Sergie.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 103 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Spending over a hundred million to avoid chipping in to the public purse

    A single greedy man pissing away 5% of the total tax revenue of Wyoming into lobbyist pockets just to not pay for public education, health & infrastructure that would benefit people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Bringing up the tax revenue of Wyoming as a yardstick sounds like you're trying to diminish the severity. Like we should be more pissed off that they get away with it for so cheap when you put it that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Bros saw those profits and changed their tune.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Throw potentially $100,000,000 at me and I would be a wholly different person. Humans aren't meant to have that much power and systems that allow it are inherently psychologically poisonous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    This isn't universally true. There are plenty of people with that amount of money that aren't psychologically poisoned, but they stop trying to double their weathly and many go philanthropist but you rarely hear those stories because they don't make a big deal about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    If you have that kind of money and choose to keep it, you're evil. Full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    To play Devil's Advocate, that kind of money gets you connections you'd never have access to otherwise. If your goal is to improve the world, having a direct line to the people in charge could let you do more good, and nothing is stopping you from donating it all posthumously anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    If we don't let anybody accumulate that kind of wealth, then that wealth can't be used to buy access.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Where do you draw the line?

    A retiree that invests well and owns a home can easily end up with well over 10 million.

    I'm fine with a billion but I find it gets tricky below that. Since a billiion is a very large magnitude above the mean.

    I'd rather push for philanthropic efforts rather than force people to do weird things like setup trusts for every heir that sits just below some limit but remain funds they still directly control by being the trustee.

    If the goal is truely to prevent being able to possible accumulate those amounts then we're looking for a different economic system which is fine but then just say that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    We should in some way couple the amount of money retirees receive (don't know how it is calculated in the US, here it is dependent of how much you earned in life and how many years you were working, with a minimum and maximum value) to the maximum amount a single person can directly and indirectly own. If your investments get over the limit, you can only spend, but not earn more money - in some cases this might result in you having to sell off something you own and donating what you get for it (and you can't use your investments as collaterals for a credit line when over) until you are back below the max.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No human being can own more than the average insurance value of a human life. Raise the average value of a human life if you want more money. That's my solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    There isn't an insurance value, only values awarded and liability coverages.

    The latter it based on risk profiles with some people having very high coverages.

    The former is literally based on earnings and ages so it would need to be a median not average.

    And a side effect you're going to run into is that by force this restriction you actually cap the punitive damages which in extreme cases can be well over 100 million so it ends up protecting billion dollar corporations which will continue to exist just spread among more investors.

    Capitalists will find a way to exploit any solution you apply. Best way to think of capital is it is like gravity, it bends everything around it and pulls more towards itself.

    Spreading the capital into a thin layer could work but will require continued and ever changing effort to prevent it from clumping.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Yes, that's why I keep saying America's problem is the boomer class. By value of assets it's 8 times bigger than even the billionaire class. And that's just boomers, it gets worse when you include the older ones (silent or greatest or whatever).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Like MacKenzie Scott (Bezos ex-wive). The amount of money she is funneling to struggling NGOs is insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The idea that NGOs can provide better ROI than tax supported public services is billionaire propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I agree, but she can't really force the state to tax her more, can't she? Supporting NGOs (which also might lobby for higher effective tax rates for the rich) is for sure a better way to help people now instead of sitting on the money and waiting that the country does something they will never do on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Quite honestly, if I was handed that much cash, I would 100% go the Paul Newman route. Food for children, free education, free healthcare... damn dude, if I were elected President, I would be assassinated the same day. I would tax anyone with a billion dollar net worth 95%.

    And I would also close down the military budget. Vote for me to be dictator, and I will start practicing Neo's moves. I would be literally dodging bullets and would have to wear an anti-bear bullet proof suit.

    But I would do it in a heartbeat for humanity. So much of this suffering is so easy to stop that it makes me sick.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Psychologically poisonous? How? I'd imagine that it'd liberate you and then you can just be yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Liberated in the same way a toddler is liberated from social decorum. The world enforces personality traits via social and evolutionary pressure. As that pressure wanes, humanity's prosocial nature can morph or decay.

    You are right, you get to be yourself. Ultimate freedom. Say hello to people at the park? That's an option. Purchase a restaurant you enjoy? That's an option. Gain an uninterruptable supply of cocaine? That's an option. Kidnap kids to be your island sex slaves? That's an equally easily available option. You are free.

    Released from restraints, people can be their best self or the most debaucherous, ladder pulling, vile thing ever to be birthed. Or cycle between either extreme as they slide through philanthropy and torture like a saltwater crocodile between marine and freshwater environments. Eventually, an itch that shouldn't be scratched might arise and an opportunistic infection could follow. I'm not interested in putting myself in that situation, let alone others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I would probably break mentally if you gave me that much money. After a short shopping spree to buy the things i always wanted but never was able to finance (nothing major - mostly high end PC hardware and around 100 TB redundant storage, a phone without a huge amount of scratches, a nice e-bike and some home renovations) I would give most of it away with minimal involvement from my side and just keep a small nest egg because i never had one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Their later solution to this problem is interesting: for a long time the search and ad teams were entirely separate. The search team had one mission and that was to make Google search as good as possible. Selling ads and making money was someone else's task. The old reasoning of "Make a really good product and then the profit will follow". This is how Google search was able to outcompete all it's competitors.

    Then 2019 rolled around, the Google Ads team failed to meet objectives, and they blamed Google search for their failure. Google's solution was to make search worse, reduce the visual difference between ads and results, and eventually put the ads guy officially in charge of search. The goal of Google search had changed from making the best search engine possible to optimizing ad views and clicks. This is one of the best documented stories of enshittification imo.

    Good reads about this:
    https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
    https://codingwithcody.com/2025/10/search-is-dead-google-killed-it/

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I think they also discovered they were charging companies for all the blocked ads nobody saw, and were about to get sued into oblivion, so they refunded a token amount, and threw ads into overdrive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I think ads were never paid by the dished out links, but by the actual opens. sometimes even only by the click on it (impression vs click).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Google 'charges for YouTube adverts viewed by bots' Published 23 September 2015

    I think this lead the charge to confirm you’re a human, i.e. age confirmation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Then they got money. That changed everthing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago (55 children)

    Some alternatives:

    • Duckduckgo (Bing with privacy)
    • Qwant (Bing with privacy, but building their own index)
    • Mojeek (pet favorite of the privacy community but small index, search often unsatisfying for me)
    • Kagi (apparently really good but paid)
  • source
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (31 children)

    Shouldn't "paid" be a a huge advantage, if we are complaining about advertising?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    Main problem with "paid" is that you have to log in for searching = all your searches can be tied to your payment into / identity. That's a big no-no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Not to mention Kagi is based in the U.S. Whatever privacy promises they make are bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Either bullshit or delusional (which amounts to bullshit for the users) if they don't realize that they can't do anything about a FISA court order. Do they have a warrant canary at least?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes: https://kagi.com/privacy

    They also have options for anonymous search.

    I’m curious about how well they enforce that, and how as a European on European servers they do more, but I wil assume it’s all transparent to state actors. As are all others.

    The benefits are in corporations and being monetized.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    VPN providers and torrent sites solved this a while ago, allowing anonymous payments: crypto, even mailing cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (17 children)

    Are you really so naive to assume that your searches tied together won't allow to identify you within days? Please never work in cybersecurity.

    Also, crypto coins are a scam nowadays, thanks to the investment markets making them unstable as fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    Bad news for you, I do work in cybersecurity (for over a decade), and I don't search for "hot singles in my exact address", so a bunch of k8s error message searches and the odd banana bread recipe won't identify me in a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Working in cybersecurity and mistaking your own online behavior as being relevant for everyone else. How could that possibly backfire? /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    If someone cares, they have to be careful. No amount of anonymous tor usage will prevent exposing you if you Google your name and social security number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (13 children)

    You shouldn't go around advising people to use anonymous payment methods for search engines that "protect your privacy". That's really bad advice, is all I am saying. But good for you...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    They protect your privacy as much as a search engine can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

    You really need to step back and reevaluate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (9 children)

    In this scenario: Your assessment of the reality of what "protecting people's privacy" means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    Some protection is better than none. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    Except using a search engine without login from a private browser window is better(!) protection by far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Which is, of course, something kagi couldn't do... Right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Of course they could, they don't need to since you're logged in, and they don't have an incentive since you're a paying customer, not the product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    in other words, "trust me bro". You really should look for a job more suitable to your qualifications. IT security is not it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah, lawyers write terms and conditions for shits and giggles. Good luck with your incognito mode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    In the case of capitalism, yes, that's pretty accurate. T&C mean nothing when it comes to enforceable consumer rights vs. digital giants. Especially for companies based in Fascistan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Not everyone on the Internet has money to burn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    So then we need to choose between advertising or demanding unpaid labor...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    we need that altruistic billionaire just doing it for the love of the consumer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I paid for kagi for a year or two. Problem (for me) is, they are very USA centric and offer less value to other regions. For region-independet search they were on par or better with google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Not trying to pick on one thing but I guess I am focusing on it in my reply.

    Am I the only person that thinks duck duck Go is no longer worth recommending?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    No, it's not just you. DDG hasn't been very good in my recent experience. I bit the bullet and gave Kagi a try and it's been excellent. It's what I recommend now.

    It's not free, but I'll gladly pay to ensure that I'm the customer being tailored to instead of the product being sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Yeah initially it felt silly to pay for a search engine, but I gave kagi a try and really like it. I could immediately turn off all ai shit. I can block websites that are ai trash or that I just plain don't like or I can just down rank a website so I'll see other results first. For example, I have the Minecraft fandom website downranked but not blocked so that if I'm searching for something that isn't documented on the Minecraft wiki then the fandom page will still pop up, it just won't be the top result ever

    Also, I'm on the basic 300 searches a month and I've never hit the max despite feeling like I search a lot between my phone and computer

    Edit: there's also a little indicator next to websites that have a lot of trackers and ads so you can avoid or block those sites if you want

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I could immediately turn off all ai shit.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the AI stuff specifically opt-in, not simply easily opt-out as you describe? I'm a (happy) paid subscriber and AI results only occur if I invoke it with the "?" at the end of the search.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I've been using DDG since the beginning when it was an inferior product to Google, manly because of the bang! search feature (which replaced Yubnub for me) and for the privacy aspect. If a DDG search didn't give me good results, I could just add !g and see the Google results. It cut down my dependence on Google by about 75% at the time but only got better as the '10s wore on. By 2020 it was just a better search engine.

    Since then it seems to be going through the same enshittification that Google went through, although they know that they live & die on their privacy feature and that seems to still be better. Instead, they have added the AI summary ("search assist" is not auto by default, so a basic search doesn't query the AI), prioritize a few of the top hits on the search (along with context results like wikipedia, dictionary, stock summaries, etc.), but the rest of the results on the first page appear to be paid ranking pages. Below that are related searches, and below that is the "more results" button that is the hits that used to come before the paid ranking pages.

    Even though it seems to be sliding into the same patterns as other commercial search engines, I still think it is better than most of the alternatives. I still set it to default some from the browser I can do things like search for RAM on NewEgg ("!ne 16gb crucial ram") and go directly to that page instead of going to a search results page that may or may not be a sponsored link that takes five seconds to load because of spotty wireless & all of the 3rd party elements having to load.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I use DDG but i wish it filtered out sites that are clearly 100% AI generated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Problem with all SEO is AI is really good at grabbing hold of the search crawlers and creating articles on questions whether it answers the question or not. I sometimes search by date published so older non ai articls have a chance. Perhaps they could increase the wighting based on age.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I wish it didn't append completely irrelevant "Apple Maps" results for places thousands of miles way, to everything I search for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I would imagine ddg can't licence Google maps. I'm surprised they don't use bing maps (if that's still a thing)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    They used to use Openstreetmap, which was very accurate where I lived, and also seemed to be reasonably good at knowing when something needed a map (like a business or location you were trying to find) and when it didn't need a map (like any other normal search).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Brave has its own index. I'm happy with it. No crypto stuff there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago

    Advertising is the most prolific form of environmental pollution wrought by commerce.

    It needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking, and every instance of it must be exhaustively scrutinised and required to be justified.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago

    I'm old enough to remember them having "don't be evil" written in big letters on their campus...

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Its easy and fun to dunk on them. And rightfully so. But I've never been genuinely tempted by tens of millions of dollars before. I can't imagine it would just be "one big moment", more like slowly boiling a frog.

    I will always hate the prequels for this. George needed help but was too proud to ask. We couldve seen how strong the pull of the dark side could be.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    But I've never been genuinely tempted by tens of millions of dollars before. I can't imagine it would just be "one big moment", more like slowly boiling a frog.

    I think a substantial majority of people wouldn't be tempted to do world-changing bad things for direct personal gain of even billions of dollars. But the corruption is, as you note, gradual.

    And the mechanism isn't direct personal gain, but gain for an institution they control: a church, a corporation, a newspaper, a university, a nonprofit. A promise of a reliable stream of income, political influence, or other goodwill for the organization is often irresistible because the person in charge doesn't feel selfish or corrupt when accepting those benefits on behalf of an altruistic mission rather than for their own personal gain, so their conscience doesn't kick in quite as sharply.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, sadly I’ve had to deem everything but the first, that Mrs. Lucas held together, as non-canonical fan fiction.

    Would have been interesting to see it as a true trilogy and not something spawned from an atomic explosion of money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago

    it's funny that they talk about ads hurting search results because they literally became an advertising company that does shitty search on the side.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›