Net-net, I think Google's benefits outweigh it's issues. Economic analysis basically backs that up.

I admit I haven't run the numbers on Google, but when I looked at YouTube, requiring human minimum wage moderators to review every video would cost billions of dollars a year - more than the entire site's revenue.

So, sure, Google could drop another 200m on moderation, but I don't think that would get you to full moderation, so you still need algorithms in there somewhere.

If you want a moderated service use one. Or build one.

If Google becomes one (which they appear to be doing in some ways) I'll look for something that is more of a raw aggregator.

Google doesn't need to be a social engineer. Nor do many of the others who have decided they know what is "harming society and doesn't need to exist". Like a F*n small town preacher on a crusade to remove a book with dirty words from the library that is.

Indeed, restraining mega-corporations and burning books are exactly the same kinds of thing.

What if the books are made by mega-corporations "just out to make money"?

Attempting to restrict what can be published/viewed by do-gooders who think they know best is hardly a new gig. It just has different flavor now.

Who would moderate the moderators though? Didn't Facebook do this and had a problem with left-wing bias in the news they served?