Discovery. From a technical point of view search doesn’t have to be centralized. Economics and the nature of markets may say different though

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not following. How could they solve discovery once and for all, instead of managing it?

I don't see how decentralization would permanently solve discovery. I can see how it could be useful in other ways, but you'd still be managing an ongoing problem.

I _think_ the GP's point is that Google is "managing" discovery, i.e., if Google were to up and disappear we would have a large problem on our hands. If search were decentralized then no single entity could bring it down.

I mean, there are a bunch of other search engines out there, and I still don't see how having even more would somehow 'solve' search for good.

I think Google is way more than just "search". No other engine knows everything about you. Knows what you read, what you dislike, your appointments, your travels, etc.

While there are alternatives for search, it's only search. Everything else is scattered. Google lives and breathes through the mesh of services they offer. Search is at the core, but everything attached to it is what makes Google so different.

It is a scary prospect IMO. We already sold our souls to it whether we like it or not. We live on our tech bubble and perhaps try to make better choices but it will never happen to the majority.

Most of what I said can also be said about Facebook, with the social network at the centre instead.

Okay. This has absolutely nothing to do with my original question, though, so I'm not sure why you put it here.

Any decentralized information system will suffer tragedy of the commons as bad actors exploit it's usefulness (imagine the SEO garbage), or have the vacuum of power filled by a few centralized players.

Before you say, "Bitcoin did it!", just look at the block size debacle or the fact that it's mostly controlled by a handful of Chinese miners.