Google has sent internet into ‘spiral of decline’, claims DeepMind co-founder

Submitted ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Bebo@literature.cafe⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/14/google-internet-spiral-of-decline-deepmind-mustafa-suleyman/

Google has plunged the internet into a “spiral of decline”, the co-founder of the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) lab has claimed.

Mustafa Suleyman, the British entrepreneur who co-founded DeepMind, said: “The business model that Google had broke the internet.”

He said search results had become plagued with “clickbait” to keep people “addicted and absorbed on the page as long as possible”.

Information online is “buried at the bottom of a lot of verbiage and guff”, Mr Suleyman argued, so websites can “sell more adverts”, fuelled by Google’s technology.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

squaresinger@feddit.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The part about Google isn’t wrong.

But the second half of the article, where he says that AI chatbots will replace Google search because they give more accurate information, that simply is not true.

source
- Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’d say they at least give more immediately useful info. I’ve got to scroll past 5-8 sponsored results and then the next top results are AI generated garbage anyways.
  
  Even though I think he’s mostly right, the AI techbro gameplan is obvious. Position yourself as a better alternative to Google search, burn money by the barrelful to capture the market, then begin enshitification.
  
  In fact, enshitification has already begun because; responses are comparatively expensive to generate. The more users they onboard, the more they have to scale back the quality of those responses.
  
  source
  - nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    ChatGPT is already getting worse at code commenting and programming.
    
    The problem is that enshitification is basically a requirement in a capitalist economy.
    
    source
- sab@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Even if AI magically got to the point of providing accurate and good results, I would still profoundly object to using it.
  
  First, it's a waste of resources. The climate impact of AI is enough of a reason why we should leave it dead until we live in a world with limitless energy and water.
  
  Second, I don't trust a computer to select my sources for me. Sometimes you might have to go through a few pages, but with traditional search engines at least you are presented with a variety of sources and you can use your god given ability of critical thinking.
  
  source
  - RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The climate change has become the new CP go to argument to condone the stupidest reasoning. Just like blocking Torrent sites to prevent CP, let’s block AI to prevent climate change.
    
    source
  - QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I don’t trust a computer to select my sources for me.
    
    I’m not sure what you think modern search engines do, but this is pretty much it. Hell, all of the popular ones have been using AI signals for years.
    
    You can request as many sources from an AI as you would get from Google.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That’s LLMs, which is what is necessary for Chat-AI (the first “L” in there quite literally stands for Large).
    
    Remove the stuff necessary to process natural human language and those things tend to be way smaller, especially if they’re just trained using the user’s own actions.
    
    source
- ribboo@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I mean most top searches are AI generated bullshit nowadays anyway. Adding Reddit to a search is basically the only decent way to get a proper answer. But those answers are not much more reliable than ChatGPT. You have to use the same sort of skepticism and fact checking regardless.
  
  Google has really gotten horrible over the years.
  
  source
  - SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Most of the results after the first page on Google are usually the same as the usable results, just mirrored on some shady site full of ads and malware.
    
    source
- twinnie@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I already go to ChatGPT more than Google. If you pay for it then the latest version can access the internet and if it doesn’t know the answer to something it’ll search the internet for you. Sometimes I come across a large clickbait page and I just give ChatGPT the link and tell it to get the information from it for me.
  
  source
  - madnificent@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Do you fact-check the answers?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - kubica@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    When I tried it it was never able to give me the sources of what it said. And it has given me way too many made up answers to just trust it without reasons. Having to search for sources after it said something has made me skip the part the middle man(machine).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Baines@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    give it time, algos will fuck those results as well
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - madnificent@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Do you fact-check the answers?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    ChatGPT powers Bing Chat, which can access the internet and find answers for you, no purchase necessary (if you’re not on edge, you might need to install a browser extension to access it as they are trying to push edge still).
    
    source
- lloram239@feddit.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  because they give more accurate information, that simply is not true.
  
  From my experience with BingChat, it’s completely true. BingChat will search with Bing and summarize the results, providing sources and all. And the results are complete garbage most of the time, since search results are filled with garbage.
  
  Meanwhile if you ask ChatGPT, which doesn’t have Internet access, you get a far more sophisticated answer and correct answer. You can also answer follow up questions.
  
  Web search is an absolutely terrible place for accurate information. ChatGPT in contrast consumes all the information out there, which makes it much harder for incorrect information to slip in, as information needs to be replicated frequently to stick around. It can and often is still wrong of course, but it is far better than any single website you’ll find.
  
  source
  - sndrtj@feddit.nl ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Chatgpt flat out hallucinates quite frequently in my experience. It never says “I don’t know / that is impossible / no one knows” to queries that simply don’t have an answer. Instead, it opts to give a plausible-sounding but completely made-up answer.
    
    A good AI system wouldn’t do this. It would be honest, and give no results when the information simply doesn’t exist. However, that is quite hard to do for LLMs as they are essentially glorified next-word predictors. The cost metric isn’t on accuracy of information, it’s on plausible-sounding conversation.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you aren’t paying for chatgpt, give a look to perplexity.ai, it is free.
  
  You’ll see that sources are references and linked
  
  source
  - tetris11@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Wow, it's really good. Who knew that asking a bot to provide references would immediately improve the quality of the answers?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- cybersandwich@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I dunno. There have been quite a few times where I am trying to do something on my computer and I could either spend 5 minutes searching, refining, digging through the results…or I can ask chatgpt and have a workable answer in 5 seconds. And that answer is precisely tailored to my specifics. I don’t have to assume/research how to modify a similar answer to fit my situation.
  
  Obviously it’s dependent on the types of information you need, but for coding, bash scripting, Linux cli, or anything of that nature LLMs have been great and much better than Google searches.
  
  source
  - Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Okay but the problem with that is that LLMs not only don’t have any fidelity requirement, they can’t. They are analogous to the language planning centre of your brain, which has to be filtered through your conscious mind to check if they’re talking complete crap.
    
    People don’t realise this and think the bot is giving them real information, but it’s actually just giving them spookily realistic word-salad, which is a big problem.
    
    Of course you can fix this if you add some kind of context engine for them to truly grasp the deeper and wider meaning of your query. The problem with that is that if you do that, you’ve basically created an AGI. That may first of all be extremely difficult and far in the future, and second of all it has ethical implications that go beyond how effective of a search engine it is.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- yoz@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Its already happening at my work. Many are using bing AI instead of google.
  
  source
  - DudeDudenson@lemmings.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Don’t worry they’ll start monetizing LLMs and injecting ads into them soon enough and we’ll be back to square one
    
    source
- Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I suspect that client-side AI might actually be the kind of thing that filters the crap from search results and actually gets you what you want.
  
  That would only be Chat-AI if it turns out natural language queries are better to determine the kind of thing the user is looking for than people trying to craft more traditional query strings.
  
  I’m thinking each person would can train their AI based on which query results they went for in unfiltered queries, with some kind of user provided feedback of suitability to account for click-bait (i.e. somebody selecting a result because it looks good but it turns out its not).
  
  source
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Google?? No, not Google. Capitalism. The same forces that drove the internet’s growth are making it so much worse than it could be. Profit motive trumps everything and drives the hellscape of engagement monetization

source
- Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah, let’s absolve the individuals working at the companies who did this from all responsibility by blaming an abstract concept instead.
  
  Capitalism may be the game, and Google may have only been one of the players, but they’re still playing dirty.
  
  source
  - seejur@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Because if Google didn’t exists, another company would have done the exact same. So yes, I think its pretty accurate to blame the system that make this business plan to only one to succeed.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Dad@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well let’s move on from the abstract concept and blame the people uphldng the system.
    
    source
- pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah, this guy just seems butthurt. If anything, Google was a prime mover and “Good guy” for about a decade or so. The Internet was fundamentally broken around the mid to late 2000s when broadband became ubiquitous and social media became popular. Tons of people online and zero way to control anything. The Internet and WWW simply weren’t built for this scale.
  
  source
  - banneryear1868@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think it’s the centralization of services that broke what the internet was in the mid-00s, and increasingly monetized every facet of it. What was internet culture in the 00s became nerd identity in the late 00s-early 10s, which over the decade became completely appropriated and commodified by capital interests.
    
    More of the internet now is intentionally constructed to cater to a market demand. In the 00s anyone could afford to run a publicly accessible web page fully designed by them. Now that’s just having a profile on an existing social media site. Google was incredible because it helped you find the most niche type of internet site, but when everything became so consolidated it pivoted to advertising, cloud services, and venture capital. Now it’s just a monster that seeds any technology they think would help them make profit and focuses the entire sector around that motivation.
    
    More people are now on the internet to turn a profit as well, because it’s now the primary place for business. Things you used to do on the internet for fun in your spare time are now career options.
    
    source
  - silkroadtraveler@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not to mention he sold his company to Google. So he’s as much a contributor as Google itself.
    
    source
- Kichae@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Sure. But also the tech bro culture of “I’m not responsible for the consequences of my choices, so long as there is a computational layer between those consequences and me”.
  
  Silicon Valley, and it’s legion of brown nosers, all love to believe that “I didn’t think…” is a valid excuse, not a self-indictment.
  
  source
  - Fades@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    culture of “I’m not responsible for the consequences of my choices, so long as there is a ~~computational ~~layer between those consequences and me”.
    
    yeah because that’s totally unique to techbros and not most capitalists in general
    
    source
- TheLurker@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Oh yeah. I mean if only it was run by an authoritative dictator then everyone would be better off right? 🙄
  
  You commies live in a fucking fantasy world.
  
  source
  - ofk12@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Robaque@feddit.it ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Communism isn’t inherently authoritarian you ignorant fool
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Before Google there used to be shitty search engines like Altavista and Yahoo!, and there were many of them so you had to also use a “meta” search engine which was basically a program running locally on your computer which would take your search query and forward it to a dozen search engines and then shows you the aggregated results. That was one way of combining their strengths let’s say since each one of them was complete shit.

The results were still shit though because many websites were gaming those search engines as SEO at the time was extremely easy: the search engines simply looked at your meta tags (where you could spam your keywords) and the keyword density of your pages.

Then Google came with its PageRank algorithm and obsoleted the meta tags altogether. Keyword density became also less important. Google basically assigned a score manually to a dozen trustworthy and high quality websites and then let those scores propagate with some decay through its graph representing all webpages it indexed and the links between them, so if a website A with a PageRank of 10 for example linked to your website B, you’d inherit part of that PageRank (how much will depend on how many outgoing links website A has, the more outgoing links it has, the less your website B will get). It was basically a measure of trustworthiness/quality and they then ranked the webpages in their results mainly according to that score.

Things went amazingly well for a few years and no one missed the old search engines, then the SEO community found a way to abuse that new algorithm again and the idea was very simple: massively exchange links and even buy them from platforms like TextLinkAds (it’s dead now but you could look it up on Wikipedia). So we went back to the shitty results again.

Then you also have another big trouble maker: Google AdSense. The idea of this thing was to pay website owners if they accept to display Google’s ads and they’d get paid something proportional to the number of clicks/impressions the ads would get on their website. The concept was okay, website owners could make some money, Google also wins, and the ads were mostly textual and none of the annoying popup ads you’d see at the time. Then it didn’t take long for people to abuse that system too, people began creating spammy websites with garbage content that’s filled with keywords just so that they can put Google AdSense ads on them, those websites were called “Made For Adsense” (MFA), and that immediately polluted the search results because you started having millions of them.

Sure Google made improvements later on and incorporated AI to have the search engine also understand the content of the webpages, which in theory should help with relevance, but due to the cat & mouse between Google and the SEO (& the MFA) community things are still shitty and the only way you can get very good results today is if you insert a site:stackoverflow.com or site:reddit.com at the end of your search query.

source
- KevonLooney@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  We’ve come full circle. Back when search sucked before you had to remember the best site to search. Creating better queries is always a good skill.
  
  source
- TheLobotomist@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Thank you for this beautiful yet sad journey! TIL!
  
  source
- Bebo@literature.cafe ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This was very informative.
  
  source
- silkroadtraveler@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I switched to DuckDuckGo and have had zero issues I had on Google that would require any additional filters.
  
  source
Q67916tJ6Z0aWM@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ive had to start putting ublock origin on cuatomers systems by default. The web has become a far worse cesspool for scams than what it was a few years ago. The ads blend in with real content. The internet is a shit hole now.

source
- Bebo@literature.cafe ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Seriously, browsing the internet without an adblocker is a horrible experience. So Firefox with ublock origin is my go to.
  
  source
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

He said search results had become plagued with “clickbait” to keep people “addicted and absorbed on the page as long as possible”.

It’s not just Internet searches. Video games are designed psyop-like as well now, all to drive engagement, and more profits.

At this point we need legislation so companies cannot make products that are mentally manipulative and detrimental to their customers.

They’re getting dangerously close to “drug pushers” territory.

source
- hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  “dangerously close”?
  
  “There are only two industries that call their customers ‘users’: illegal drugs and software.” – Edward Tufte
  
  source
  - CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Edward Tufte
    
    lol! I had never heard of that quote before now, ty for sharing!
    
    source
- pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This has been going on for decades and Blizzard started using it almost exclusively with World of Warcraft. They made the game a virtual Skinner Box (look it up and read about the experiments if you’ve never heard about it, pretty much animals will prefer to do things that lmao derive pleasure from instead of necessary things, like eating), and other companies followed suit. Then loot boxes and IAPs became a thing.
  
  source
  - CosmicCleric@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    This has been going on for decades
    
    It seems like it’s a recent development in this decade, at least an accelerated form of it.
    
    Almost like recently evolved in corporations got together and decided enmass to start treating their customers more like things to exploit.
    
    Less win-win, and more win-lose.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
NickwithaC@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

He said search results had become plagued with “clickbait” to keep people “addicted and absorbed on the page as long as possible”.

No, that’s the advertising that did that, the search results made a whole field of “SEO” possible which aimed to make the least useful page show up first in the results,

source
LemmysMum@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
And if you follow the chain of causation to the top what do we find?

Image

source
- RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah…not so simple.
  
  Our system based on infinite growth for the investors is what fucks everything up. The incessant need for MORE places pressure on companies to fuck someone over for money once the initial innovative growth stage ends and the market gets saturated. They buy or crush what they the can. Usually the employees get it first with hiring cheaper labor, reduction in fringe and real benefits, rising costs for existing benefits, etc. Then the consumer gets hit next with enshittification. Shittier services, harder to access services, unbundling, more fees, shittier products, etc. often compounded with more in-your-face marketing.
  
  source
  - Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Hmmm, someone could write a book about this!
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Pofski@sopuli.xyz ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Another good examples of this I feel is how netflix is doing (and disney+ now as well). Year over year profits for shareholders have ruined what used to be good (or at least descent) businesses.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - grayman@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The modern stock market sucks ass. I’m convinced that most of the problems with companies is tied to focusing on stock price.
    
    source
- bort@feddit.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  how would that situation have played out without capitalism?
  
  source
  - laskoune@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not everything is 100% capitalism or 0% capitalism In this case, unregulated capitalism and the basic human greed are responsible for this situation. Everybody wants to make a quick buck, never mind the consequences Also a full capitalist system would not have invented the internet as we know it or the World Wide Web or even the micro computing industry
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Darkenfolk@dormi.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Nope, Chuck Testa.
  
  source
slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I heard lot of complaints of google search and seen the decline, but it’s like it got significantly worse in the last 1-2 years. I read it’s not just ads and clickbait/seo “articles”, but google is editing your queries without your knowledge, so they can milk more money out of their advertisers.

It’s mostly unusable now if you want to search for smg new, I just use it to jump to already known pages (e.g. google “vodafone” to jump to the page with a few clicks an pay my bills, often simpler than typing/bookmarking).

source
- GeekyNerdyNerd@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  but google is editing your queries without your knowledge, so they can milk more money out of their advertisers.
  
  That came from a wired article which was quietly retracted because the author had misunderstood a slide from the Google anti trust trial and had the meaning nearly backwards.
  
  What Google is actually doing is allowing advertisers to match keywords to common synonyms and other relevant keywords. If you search for (insert brandname) infant sleepwear for example Google will also show ads from adverts from companies who selected the keywords “baby pajamas”. And that specific keyword replacement was only relevant to advertising"…
  
  Google has long been transparent about the fact they interpret the meaning of keywords for searches to try to improve their relevance, and if you think about it if Google was replacing low value keywords with higher value ones it would be obvious, as generic searches would only turn up stuff from luxury brands and ads wouldn’t have broad keyword matching.
  
  There are plenty of things to blame Google for, the low return on advertising that publishers get and the increasing need for the entire Internet to be locked behind millions of different paywalls, SEO optimization, click bait bullshit, link farms, but one of them isn’t replacing keywords to maximize value.
  
  source
  - Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    What Google is actually doing is allowing advertisers to match keywords to common synonyms and other relevant keywords.
    
    So they ARE replacing search terms. Or at least adding to them.
    
    And that specific keyword replacement was only relevant to advertising"…
    
    So they ARE doing it make more money.
    
    This was a good explanation but it doesn’t really refute his point.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Compare to Amazon.com. Same thing. Ever less relevant searches in favor of who paid most to promote their products (usually random Chinese company with super cheap low quality products). Nowadays even if you search for a specific brand and model, it will often be buried by crap. And there is no way around it with advanced search parameters or filters.
  
  It’s a shame, I remember when Google literally revolutionized how we search the web, and Amazon did the same with ecommerce.
  
  source
  - slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Amazon was for a long time not available in my east EU country, first time I checked it a few years ago, I was baffled how people could find this useful. Now I live in west EU, so not many alternatives, I hate it for the same reasons you list. Unless you specifically look for smg and know the details, you get all the seless shit pushed forward in your search.
    
    source
- m_randall@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This is what led me to Kagi. It’s been so liberating.
  
  source
  - alsu2launda@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Mind elaborating?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
d33pblu3g3n3@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
DDG to the rescue! It’s astounding how in this day and age, duckduckgo gives much more meaningful results than google. Exception made for local businesses, but for technical info and issues, DDG is way better.

source
- alsu2launda@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I have noticed this too, DDG is giving me more of what i want, google always disappoints with random an unrerlated resutls, Some of the resultso of DDG are not even visible in first page of google results.
  
  source
- fiddlestix@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Obligatory mention of Kagi (which is actually brilliant).
  
  source
- Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Unfortunately DDG has gone downhill quite a lot in the last year or two.
  
  Exception made for local businesses,
  
  It’s funny you say that, because in the last year or so suddenly my search results are being polluted with completely unrelated links to local businesses that don’t even contain a single one of my search terms.
  
  They’ve obviously struck some deal where they’re shoehorning these ads into search results now. Very frustrating because they serve them as regular links so they bypass adblockers.
  
  Really scummy move on their part, and it’s made their service worse to boot.
  
  source
- dutchkimble@lemy.lol ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I feel Kagi does both things
  
  source
- Asimo@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I mean, I know David DeGea is a good keeper but I’m not sure he can save the internet too.
  
  source
Nobsi@feddit.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Oh yes, it’s Google who ruined the Internet… Not all the Content farms like facebook, instagram, twitter and online news. Its the search engine guys.

source
snek@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I’ve been saying this for years, but no one listens to a random dev. Now I can finally back it up with some authority.

source
Uglyhead@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Goolag went completely off the rails when they decided to drop the “Don’t Be Evil” pledge. There were whole projects dropped on a dime the moment anyone questioned if a certain project or action was “evil”. Now nobody at Goolag even cares anymore. It’s all about that $earch For More $$$; anyway they can get it.

It will ultimately be their downfall, mmw.

source
noodle@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I know Google is a big corpo but its hardly the only reason behind the state of the internet. It is a major factor, but to single out Google when Microsoft and others have played just as significant of a role is odd.

source
pensa@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I'd really like it if we stopped blaming the corporation and start blaming the people that make the decisions there and the people that implement those decisions. From the CEO's to the programmers. Put their names everywhere, show the world who actually ruined it. Google was the best resource humanity had to access information. Now, more often than not, I can not find anything related to my search. The search algorithm they used 20 years ago was better than this new junk.

source
m3t00@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
‘entrepreneur’ lacks the positive vibe it used to bring. like saying ‘visionary’ or ‘genius’. overuse has tipped these terms into ‘yeah right’ and ‘clickbait’ especially when appearing in headlines. blame google for aggregating clickbait headlines but they aren’t writing them. interesting that telegraph.co.uk hosting this is packed full with ‘clickbait’. designed with LCD appeal and low value content like this story

source
NutWrench@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I would gladly go back to 1990s Internet if it meant not having to deal with Google and data mining. I haven’t turned off ad-blocking in 20 years.

source
mechoman444@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Abba - money money money

source
spudwart@spudwart.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
SearXNG or other self-hostable aggregators are a great alternative. And yes, you can disable google as an aggregated source.

source
treadful@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Mirror without a paywall

source
fne8w2ah@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ecosia and DDG to the rescue!

source
ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Google is terrible. It is beyond me that the majority of the population is dumb/uneducated enough to use it.

source
dolle@feddit.dk ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I’ll just use this opportunity to mention kagi.com, a search engine that you pay for, but which doesn’t track you and gives you controls for customizing your search results yourself instead of letting an algorithm build a profile of your habits. I’ve used it for months now, and I’m not going back.

source