I work in Google Cloud and this comment makes me sad. Not everyone is a sellout and I didn't forfeit my soul for a nice paycheck.

What motivates me to go to work every day is making our customers' life as easy as possible. And not because I want to make Google even more profitable, but because running on GCP is greener. In fact, since 2017 all Google operations are offset by renewable energy: https://sustainability.google/reports/environmental-report-2... .

So, please don't generalize. I firmly believe that the vast majority of Googlers still care and are not evil.

(these are my personal thoughts and by no mean I speak on behalf of Google itself).

Who would you rather have it governed by? Facebook? Microsoft? Amazon? Wall Street? DARPA? US Govt? EU? China? Russia?

At an abstract level: any organization, run by humans, with a lot of power over critical aspects of our life is bound to get corrupted due to that power. Its just that some organizations are less bad than others. And I believe Google isn't much worse than many other realistic alternatives.

That's a false, uh, decachotomy (?), it doesn't have to be a centralized organization of any kind at all

It doesn't have to be, but things seem to be inevitably gravitating towards a centralized model because it seems people care the most about their User Experience and everything else is secondary (privacy, monopoly, monoculture, worker abuse, etc).

The word you are looking for is dichotomy.

I think the parent commenter wanted to emphasize that there are more than 2 options (di- = 2, deca- = 10) to choose from...

But false decachotomy would imply there are more than 10 options. Seems weirdly specific.

Such an organization, designed to respect input from consumers, workers, and global community members affected by negative externalities might be called a "co-op."

It's a matter of oversight, transparency, accountability and motivation. In the case of Google, they have very little oversight, nearly zero transparency, they are accountable to only their shareholders, and their motives are exclusively profit.

They have no interest, or even means of producing, a publically good internet. They can and will only produce an internet that is best suited to make them money. And with that there will be inherent conflicts with what is best for the users.

At least with a government you get some of the transparency and oversight, public control and no profit motive (if you cap campaign financing that is)

Some organization structures are better suited to do different things.

That's exactly the kind of unreasonable hatred I'm talking about. Wise people would understand that these companies (including the ones who you think are much better) are only as 'evil' as the law of the land allows them to be, and most of them are 'for profit' and will do everything they can to maximize the profit still being in the legal framework. Which company do you like instead?

They are spending millions of dollars lobbying and poisoning the law.

And again, all companies with enough money to be able to do that are doing that.

That is why I avoid all these companies. Everybody have the option to do that aswell.

Chill dude. I have almost never seen such generalizations are justified. "Sellout"? please.