Search engines are important, but they’re funded quite well with ads, so why would anybody go through the effort to make it a public utility?

I suppose if the government felt that ads-supported search engines had such misaligned incentives that it would be net beneficial for society to create one without such incentives, then that might serve as a justification. I don’t actually think this is plausible, just making an analogy with say private fire departments.

So that search engines work.

Google search has been crippled by ads. Sometimes people just want nice stuff and a search engine that wasn't designed to mislead (https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-searc...) and where the amount of money paid doesn't dictate what is easy to find would be a great asset to everybody. No company has risen to give us a powerful search engine that isn't also a cesspool of marketing bullshit so it would be reasonable for people to seek an option that serves the interests of the public.

Yeah, I just don't trust the govt to not politicize search, or at the very least, to not use search results to manufacture consent or other nefarious intentions.

NPR comes to mind.

With private companies, at least there's some visage of a separation from state influence although we are seeing the lash back now with Twitter.

> funded by taxpayer dollars.

No thanks, I'd rather not use money coerced from innocent citizens for making a web search engine. Let's use that money for the smallest possible set of limited services.

No. We need decentralised federated solution.