there are products that I would buy if I would know they exist but I don’t because they don’t have enough money to do advertisment. It’s inherently an unfair competition. The only ads that I would like to see is a tematical search for all of the buyable products and services.

--- that might potentially sell
+++ that is pushed with money

If they want to fight hard, they just add the ads into the stream.

In a perfect world we wouldn’t have ads.

I liked this discussion. However, I think both of you have different axioms. It’s a pro-socialism vs pro-capitalism debate.

In capitalism, we need innovation to create new value. Or you can pollute water to sell water bottles which will have value now. It’s up to citizens to decide what to restrict that was publicly available or what to innovate.

In socialism, the innovation is only happening where it needs to happen carefully planned and funded by the government.

I’m rather socialist, so I’d defend it:

Having a software with inability to modify is injustice, It’s the same as polluting a water to sell it. Even if we need to pollute the water to sell it, it doesn’t justify pollution.

You can’t make a law for everything evil that corporations do. Social democracy is flawed inherently. We need direct decision power of people in those firms. Never gonna happen though.

I would imagine it as lemmy. It would be a free, ethical software which is indirectly funded by the government. Everybody uses facebook so that’s a good reason to turn it into a public property. We could make it without anti-features. Made for people, not for profit.

I would prefer paying for it with my taxes. Not for facebook though.