Hey, tech nerds. I have a question for you. Please boost this so it gets seen around.

Right now, my city is struggling with a very serious problem, and a very real issue:

Google wants to build a datacenter.

That's the problem. The issue is:

Google controls the means by which most people access information.

What are realistic solutions to this problem?

"Use DuckDuckGo" is *not* a reasonable solution, because that misunderstands what I'm saying when I say Google controls the means by which most people access information. I don't mean Web search.

I mean Google is one of the biggest voices in determining what even *counts* as valid information, on the Web.

I mean Google has spent decades helping decide which protocols, formats, authentication systems, certificate practices, deliverability rules, browser behaviors, advertising norms, analytics expectations, mobile defaults, SEO conventions, and “security” standards become mandatory for being legible online.

And I do mean mandatory.

Because none of these things are technically required for people to communicate. People can publish HTML. People can send email. People can host files. People can run servers. People can make feeds. People can share text.

But in practice, if your site does not meet the expectations of Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, Android, Maps, YouTube, Google Ads, Google Analytics, Google Cloud, reCAPTCHA, Safe Browsing, and the standards bodies and corporate ecosystems Google helps shape, then your communication becomes less reachable, less deliverable, less trusted, less indexed, less visible, or simply blocked.

This is what I mean by “Google controls the means by which most people access information.”

Not that Google owns every website.

That would almost be easier to fight.

The problem is that Google sits at the crossroads of discovery, reputation, authentication, infrastructure, advertising, analytics, spam detection, device defaults, and browser behavior. It gets to define the conditions under which information appears normal, trustworthy, safe, relevant, or even existent.

And everyone else has to adapt.

Cities adapt.
Schools adapt.
Small businesses adapt.
Libraries adapt.
Journalists adapt.
Nonprofits adapt.
Activists adapt.
Indigenous nations adapt.
Ordinary people adapt.

We are constantly told this is “just how the internet works,” but it is not. It is how an internet works after decades of corporate consolidation, regulatory failure, and public institutions outsourcing basic communication infrastructure to companies whose interests are not aligned with public life.

So when Google wants to build a datacenter in my city, the question is not only:

“How much water will it use?”
“How much power will it use?”
“How many jobs will it create?”
“What tax breaks will it get?”

Those are important questions.

But the deeper question is:

How do we even have the conversation in which those questions can unfold?

Because outside of private algorithmic bubbles, individuals increasingly have no meaningful way to communicate at scale.

A personal website is not enough if no one can find it.
An email list is not enough if messages are filtered, throttled, or marked suspicious.
A public meeting is not enough if people only hear about it through platforms that decide who gets shown what.
A local news article is not enough if discovery is mediated by search, social, and ad systems.
A community warning is not enough if it has to compete with opaque ranking systems, engagement incentives, and corporate spam filters.

So I am asking, seriously:

What are realistic solutions?

Not individual consumer choices.
Not “use another search engine.”
Not “just self-host.”
Not “build an app.”
Not “post somewhere else.”

I mean political, technical, legal, municipal, and infrastructural solutions.

What can a city do?
What can a public library system do?
What can a university do?
What can local media do?
What can state regulators do?
What can standards bodies do?
What can community organizations do?
What can technologists build that does not simply recreate the same dependency under a different brand?

Because if the answer is that there is no meaningful way for a community to communicate outside the channels shaped by Google and its peers, then we should be honest about that.

That is not a technology problem.

That is a governance problem.