121–130 of 256 posts
As a casual website owner, I find Google is the main culprit. My original articles were buried under content farms full of copypastas. Lots of my URLs were either "Discovered – currently not indexed" or "Crawled - currently not indexed", but spam sites are happily searchable with the exact same content. And I don't want spend to fight SEO.
Does anyone think that Google cares about the free and open Internet anymore? I don’t mean they oppose it, I just mean it doesn’t seem like it’s on the list of things the company prioritizes. It sometimes seems like Google’s internal self-image is stuck in 2001, when they were an idealistic search engine company whose goal was to organize the world’s information. Today they are an ad company, running some office apps…
Join G and masquerade as a zealot and you will soon be invited to off-campus chat networks where employees strategize how to cancel the next “asshole” on their radar. It’s sickening and they should all go to jail for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you've seen how a "journalist" doesn't have the patience to spend 60 seconds searching for something you're knowledgeable about, will you (not you specifically) take as gospel anything they say about something you're not knowledgeable about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so. Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume. Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to delive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to say, I find this bit amusing: "That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say." The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief. [edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
It's the same with typical sales persons: Even though they constantly exaggerate, you want to believe (unless there's animosity). So you take it into account that they exaggerate, but not by as much as they do exaggerate. Which means it's still better for them to do it than not. At least that's my impression of these dynamics, would love good studies about it.
> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon Every single one of these predates Pichai, who only became CEO in 2015: * Google Wave was already turned down in 2012 * Google Plus launched in 2011 and the writing was on the wall by 2015 * Google Glass consumer edition was discontinued in Jan 2015 before Pichai started * Loon is the only arguable exception; it was…
> However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing" Not sure I understand that distinction. If I label all my projects as experiments, do I also get to escape culpability for their failure while loading on the self-praise when they succeed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is literally the only tech giant with an interest in the open internet. Facebook scored the mortal wound on the web — they reinvented a bigger, badder AOL closed garden.
> Google is literally the only tech giant with an interest in the open internet. This statement is an oxymoron. "Tech giants" hobble the open principles of the internet by their own existence, persistence and, by-definition, over-bearing influence. Any entity genuinely concerned with preserving open principles would seek to limit its growth far-prior to where Google is now, and eliminate the pervasiveness of its infl…
If anything Apple has does more harm than anyone to the Web by pushing the idea of native apps for everything served from a closed proprietary App Store that you can’t even side load around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? It seems that a search engine would need the internet to have as much information out there in the open to index and give us the results upon searching.. Because they are so dominate they exercise outsized control, but there are still a few others. Data behind paywalls/logins is useless to them.
Except of course Google is not a search engine company, Google is an advertising company
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To this day I have no idea what that statement is supposed to express despite seeing it about a dozen times per week. Google makes money selling ads yes, but their core product is search. Like a newspaper, which does journalism, and also has an ad department, or a TV show, with ad breaks, or a sports broadcast. Do people think Google makes their search worse to... sell fewer ads?
It properly calls attention to what google’s primary purpose is. Its not search. A newspaper’s primary purpose is to inform the public, and make money while doing so. Googles primary purpose is not search, and to make money while doing so. Googles primary purpose is collect and sell data, and make money while doing so.
If the primary purpose was ada, then it would stop all of the wasteful spending on engineering projects with no relation to, and no hope of, making ad money.
Google will attack and subvert every nationalist politician around the world because they are existentially dependent on globalism and weak national borders. Anyone who is a nationalist is racist and hates freedom according to Google. Nevermind self-determination. China is their worse nightmare because they are not dumb enough to let profiteers monitor and manipulate their citizens. Other countries are waking up to t…
Look no further than the fact that nationalist movements have right wing ethno-state ambitions attached to them everywhere, usually with a return to “Greater X” where X is an older empire they use to have, usually when their faction was more ethnically dominant.
> Third, a lot of Pichai's big bets have failed: Google Glass, Google Plus, Google Wave, Project Loon Every single one of these predates Pichai, who only became CEO in 2015: * Google Wave was already turned down in 2012 * Google Plus launched in 2011 and the writing was on the wall by 2015 * Google Glass consumer edition was discontinued in Jan 2015 before Pichai started * Loon is the only arguable exception; it was…
> However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing" Not sure I understand that distinction. If I label all my projects as experiments, do I also get to escape culpability for their failure while loading on the self-praise when they succeed?
By contrast, Wave, Plus and Glass were all consumer products from the mothership that were heavily hyped as being the Next Big Thing that would revolutionize work/IM, social networks and mobile phones respectively.