I think what we’re running into here, is that you want to talk about removing capitalism. Which I’m all for, in the context of a functional democracy. Which isn’t the case in the US or anywhere in the world.
Until we know what that looks like, and its parameters you won’t admit how bad nationalising a search engine is without other privately owned alternatives.
How is it not currently a propaganda tool? It’s owned by shareholders like blackrock and vanguard. At least with it being nationalized it’s possible to control it democratically
It is somewhat, but it’s not as bad as if it was run by Trump and co.
Which is how x would become the whole internet.
Which is why the best option. Which you didn’t include, is splitting Google up. Split the advertising from search. This is the surest way to make them cater to us. Especially if we can force them to compete with other search engines.
That hasn’t been the case if you look into what happened with Microsoft and browsers.
The other thing is
everyone would still use Google.
Is actually wrong, and what they proved with the antitrust case itself. A huge chunk of the anticompetitive activity was Google paying to be the default because people don’t change the default.
The idea stems from the propaganda tool that would be if it were state owned. Other countries would seriously discourage or ban its use, but as it is useful they’d need a replacement. Hence a thousand shitty ones.
That’s not in anyone’s interest. It’s the surest way to have a thousand national search engines which are all shitty. National walled internet Gardens etc
Break it up instead
None of those things are direct propaganda tools.
The second they start having to put maga posters into you mailbox and nobody else’s you’ll see it differently.