It sounds like rather than a news search engine & aggregator, the poster would rather use a curated news service (e.g. CNN) that gives them a single particular viewpoint. Or at the very least, would like their sources to be vetted or editorialized in some way, as opposed to the original Google mission "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Who is going to replace Google for us?
21–30 of 229 posts
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#22OpenAI will.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#23We're living through another tragedy of the commons, but the culprit isn't human nature itself, so much as it is capitalism. The corporates have made sure they have absolute dominion over human usage of time and space, and anything they don't value (or that might represent opposition to them, now or later) dies.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#24Google News has become completely worthless for me. It takes my YouTube usage and promotes news stories based on that. But that makes absolutely no sense. I go to YouTube to relax and/or look at things that are not so important. Sudoku solving, gaming news, and/or chess stuff. I used to go to Google News to have an understanding of what’s happening in the world. But now my Google News feed is overridden by stories ab…
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#25>Here’s the thing that made me write this - I used to load up Google News a lot, I’ve now switched to bookmarks. It’s one thing for promoting junk news sources, but recently I’ve seen them cary both Brietbart (known for historically running a “black crime” section!) and the Epoch Times (a disinformation site being run by an actual cult) spouting absolutely false covid denial. I can’t support this in any way. I’m done…
Sputnik, Infowards, or NAMBLA shouldn't be on par with the BBC or WaPo and if you think otherwise you maybe should lower your redpill dosages!
EDIT: Downvote away! Karma is useless and you can't kill the messenger! Kids: misinformation is not information. They people that use it are sociopaths and will lie like hell and gaslight you to keep up their scam. If you think the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, et al are on par with Jordan Peterson, Breitbart, or Infowars then you have been really poorly served in your life. You are in a disinformation bubble and you don't even realize it. Escape now, model-based targeting is not going to make it easier.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. What do you mean? I know they compete in AI research, but has (no longer quite so) OpenAI shown any sign of competing for Google's cash cows?
They made great progress in NLP, which is a big part of what Google Search is about. Also, they have the compute infrastructure for it.
We really need a web infrastructure where the index (or the indexer) is somehow public and neutral, not owned by any particular corporate entity. This should have been built into WWW architecture from day one. But legislation could attempt to make it happen now. Companies should be free to innovate on top of it, but we're effectively in a state now where monopoly power has been granted to the people who got there first (well, close to it, anyways).
EDIT: to be clearer, imagine a crawling infrastructure run by industry consortium. You pay a membership fee and usage / traffic fees and you get to upload a WebAssembly program that is called with the contents of pages every time the crawler hits them. What you do with them from that point on is up to you, but would presumably be something like building your own corpus for a search engine, etc. Moderation and regulatory oversight on the usages of this data would obviously have to be put in place. But to me it seems preferable to the status quo now.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#27The issue with Google is that people expect too much out of it. The author of this page, like many others, expects that there are many people out there putting great information on the Internet and doing it for free, and all Google needs to do is find that information. The problem is that getting good information is hard work. People aren't doing it for free.
Google is like the old Yellow Pages, or Computer Shopper. You didn't pick up the Yellow Pages looking for enlightenment. You were looking for a plumber. Google is great for commerce, and for other odd things. The author pines for the old Yahoo directory, but one reason Google superseded it is that if I were looking for a link to, say, the University of Michigan, on Yahoo I had to drill through a directory to find it. Google surfaces this kind of thing instantly and this functionality is something people now take for granted - which is why I'll bet most of the Google gripers still use it multiple times daily.
The gripers are expecting Google is some portal to free world knowledge. Not going to happen, because knowledge is hard work and people don't like to work for free.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#28I say this because as hard as can be to imagine how something like Google will cease to be dominant in several areas (most notably search) but I guarantee you somehow this era will come to an end.
We've had tech dominance in the past. IBM is a good example. Microsoft is another. Even Oracle could count within its space.
Dominance is a divergent state.
It's also why I'm not particularly worried about wealth concentration in dynasties. In 100 years the descendants of Bezos won't be the ruling class in the same way the Vanderbilts, Astors, Rockefellers, Carnegies and Morgans aren't.
Relax. These things have a way of working themselves out.
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#29Apple will
Re: Who is going to replace Google for us?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
They made great progress in NLP, which is a big part of what Google Search is about. Also, they have the compute infrastructure for it.
The problem with taking on Google Search is that of taking on the document corpus they build and the spidering / crawling work they do. Google and Bing are permitted by hosts to crawl, but new entrants effectively barred by most site's robots.txt. The barrier to entry is massive on that front alone. We really need a web infrastructure where the index (or the indexer) is somehow public and neutral, not owned by any pa…