Another option would divide YouTube and Google’s advertising units into stand-alone companies and separate them from Alphabet’s other ventures.Well, that is, if this could motivate YouTube and the other consumer parts of Google to not work from a surveillance capitalism basis. It's possible that it might not.
A third option would be for the government to regulate Google like a public utility, forcing it to license out its algorithms, for instance, to help spur competition. This is akin to what the government did in 1956: A consent decree required AT&T to license all its 7,800 patents royalty-free in exchange for allowing the company to continue to maintain its telephone monopoly.This would be literally making them work for the public good. People attached to capitalism as a principle, rather than a tool, will undoubtedly bristle at this, and that's why I think it wouldn't happen. But I see nothing wrong with putting something powerful to work for the benefit of the public good, especially if they still profit.
The images of the moon’s surface coming down from the orbiters were of astonishingly high resolution, good enough to blow up to 40ftx54ft pictures. When Nasa engineers initially stitched the images together they had to hang them in a church to view them. Eventually, they found a hangar where they could be laid on the ground for astronauts to walk on them in stockinged feet in order to search for suitable landing sites.The column then goes on about Brexit cutting the UK off from advanced technologies like Galileo (a GPS-like system).
For decades, nobody outside of Nasa and the US military knew how good these images were. The few that were released for public consumption were heavily degraded and fuzzy. Why? Because the cameras used in the lunar orbiters were derivatives of the cameras used in high-altitude US aerial reconnaissance planes and satellites and the Pentagon didn’t want the Soviets to know the level of detail that could be derived from them.
Miller, who grew up in Santa Monica, California, has been connected to white nationalist ideas since his college days as an undergraduate at Duke University.
A member of the Duke Conservative Union, Miller worked with classmate Richard Spencer, who would eventually become the de facto face of the white supremacist movement. There, they organized a debate featuring Peter Brimelow, a prominent white nationalist. Brimelow has written extensively about the dangers of nonwhite immigration and runs a commentary site called VDARE, named after the first white child born in what would become the United States, Virginia Dare.
Spencer told Mother Jones the two were close at Duke, but Miller denied having any relationship with Spencer.
University of Oregon journalism professor Peter Laufer, who debated Brimelow at the event, told us that Miller and Spencer worked closely together as the driving forces behind the event. Laufer went out to dinner with both Miller and Spencer before the debate, and then got drinks with them afterward.
“Any suggestion they were not partners is not accurate,” Laufer said.
While the event was a debate, Laufer said both Miller and Spencer clearly backed Brimelow’s xenophobic, anti-immigration stance over Laufer’s advocacy of open borders.
“They were nothing but gracious hosts,” Laufer said. “But that is not to suggest their politics weren’t, and aren’t, repugnant. It’s hard imagining two worse examples of distasteful, obnoxious, counterproductive hateful behavior. It continues to amaze me that the two of them have been able to so successfully influence the direction of the country.”