61–70 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they made the world a worse place. Can you show your working? Pros/cons for the existence of Google?
Well everyone is now followed constantly in their activity by their technology. They really made the world a panopticon dystopia.
I'm curious if there's another company in history that became so pervasive so quickly? Not just in terms of size, but in impact/reach? I realise this question somewhat requires defining what Google is and it's current size and scale, which is quite the challenge. To me Google seems uniquely impactful, uniquely quickly, but I'd love to learn of other comparable companies from history.
But come to think of it, advancements in technology catch up quickly. Looking back into history: Ford Motor Company, Bell Telephone Company: they created a profound impact on the society in less than a couple of decades. I am sure there are other examples. I wonder: at what point in time did it accelerate? With the start of the Industrial Revolution?
Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it". Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying…
Some of the arguments aren't actually Olympian, although if you have a pre-existing bias against commerce or capitalism it may feel that way. Most obvious example query of where PageRank totally fails: [flowers]. The correct top result here for 99.9% of searchers is a local flower shop or possibly a big flower delivery chain, but it's not the Wikipedia page for flowers. Likewise for [hotel near me] which an algorithm…
Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it". Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying…
Some of the arguments aren't actually Olympian, although if you have a pre-existing bias against commerce or capitalism it may feel that way. Most obvious example query of where PageRank totally fails: [flowers]. The correct top result here for 99.9% of searchers is a local flower shop or possibly a big flower delivery chain, but it's not the Wikipedia page for flowers. Likewise for [hotel near me] which an algorithm…
At it's heart advertising is about informing potential customers about products or services [1].
One aspect you've missed though is the free-versus-paid dimension - here the competition is between people creating links, versus paid for promotion.
You could argue that reflects the value perceived by the paid or free 'customers'. However I think in the area of politics and ideas there is a dangerous imbalance - because of the power of professional promotion.
In essence common sense is being drowned out by paid agendas - because of the difference in impact a paid professional can make.
[1] Let's ignore all the dark arts aspects for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do you have “free” without ads?
The same way libraries are free: they're actually paid for by taxpayers. If the internet was invented in America's earlier days, a lot of these information tools would be a public service, similar to libraries, and we'd all be better for it.
Google would be no different. Forget any "innovation" any of Google's satellite projects may have had, they simply wouldn't exist, too expensive. The service would be stripped down to a bare bones minimum of functionality and farmed out to lowest-bid contractors to save money. The CIA, NSA and law enforcement would have backdoors everywhere (so no difference there), "controversial" sites would be delisted or fined (because broadcast decency laws would probably apply, and the taxpayers would insist any indecency be removed) and the whole thing would wind up privatized by the Republicans anyway, so it would still run ads at the end.
Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it". Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying…
> part of their induction is to train their employees how to combat these ideas You dont need to indoctrinate people; the selection process takes care of most of the heavy lifting and the rest is taken care of by the fat paycheque and stock options. imo there is absolutely nothing wrong with the conflict of interest, pretending it doesnt exist however suggests either dishonesty or a special kind of stupidity.
Right, in principle I don't strongly disagree with you. Certainly in the short term the intelectual dishonesty bothers me more than making money by bumping up results.
But whether that is a real issue or not, depends on how relevant Google is in our society. If there's alternatives, people can try them. If there's no alternatives, having the power to control the results to benefit yourself is maybe too much power concentrated in too few hands. It's unclear to me where we stand right now. I haven't used Google search in many years (DDG), but I'm aware they're hugely influential to basically everyone else.
Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it". Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying…
Exactly. This has been reported [1] and expanded on [2]. In a nutshell, they have internal learning materials designed to train employees to not recognize anti-competitive behavior.
[1]: https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/08/07/google-doc...
Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it". Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying…
> I've never worked at Google, but I would bet that part of their induction is to train their employees how to combat these ideas. You'd lose the bet. Rather I think the entire topic of monetization is glossed over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way libraries are free: they're actually paid for by taxpayers. If the internet was invented in America's earlier days, a lot of these information tools would be a public service, similar to libraries, and we'd all be better for it.
You're under the mistaken impression that Americans like their taxes to go towards public services. Many public libraries are underfunded, and what funding they get is sometimes wrapped up in censorship laws serving an increasingly hostile and paranoid constitutency. "Public service" is synonymous with "government controlled service." Google would be no different. Forget any "innovation" any of Google's satellite pro…