he co-founded deepmind, which was acquired by google. he also worked at google itself (left last year). he knows a fair bit about google and its inner workings, especially in regards to ai tech integration into its various properties. so more than just a 'competitor' or 'businessowner'
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.
“Don’t be evil” is still the last line of Google’s corporate conduct. Seemingly not many people understand that Alphabet is Google’s parent company, not their direct replacement, and all they did was change it to “Do the right thing”, because generally when you’re broken up in anti-trust measures, you don’t want to just rename your company.
Note: I am not arguing that Google is a “Good” company. It’s just nonsensical to point to a completely arbitrary “Evil” in their policy and say that without that they would, y’know, be evil. Particularly when Google itself still has that policy.
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.
(aside of social network’s disinformation, conspiracies, hate breeding and false news) this is prime example of what the internet ended up as, to a regular user: how-i-experience-web-today.com
If we are trying to dig into the root cause? Then yes, honestly. It is Google. And don’t call them the “search engine guys”, that’s not what they are about. They are the “mass aggregation and correlation of user data guys”. Search has been a means to an end for Google for a very long time.
All those other things didn’t exist when google was developing their model. Google paved the way for the internet no longer being free, but being “free” with payment rendered in the form of user data. That in turn directly led to all those other evils you referred to. It is not an exaggeration to imply that Google is ultimately at fault for the way the internet functions today.
Nah. Disagree. I remember facebook gathering data to an extreme way before google pushed ads on search engine.
Thats like saying BP is at fault for climate change and ignoring exxon nd shell.
Google’s advertising system definitely predates Facebook. It was the inspiration for Facebook and Twitter’s monetization models … There are interviews where people in those companies talk about being inspired by this Google model where they just give everyone away for free in exchange for ads being placed on their site.
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
Also a full capitalist system would not have invented the internet as we know it
We’d have had CompuServe, only bigger. Subscription only, walled garden environments.
Might have got something close to modern ubiquity with cable companies bundling search and forum functions in with the video, but it would still be heavily monetised and tightly controlled.
The purest Capitalism is Unregulated Capitalism: Regulated Capitalism means that there is some other ideology (in the basic sense of “set of ideas”) guiding the decisions about the where and how to regulate said Capitalism and having the power to impose itself on Capitalism (otherwise it wouldn’t be “regulating” it, just “advising” it, which would be promptly ignored).
The problem is exactly that the dominant political system we’ve had for the last 4 decades, often known as neoliberalism, is all about removing regulations on Capitalism (hence neoliberalism), so a movement to make Capitalism the one and only political ideology with any real power for every and all political decisions in Society, not merelly the one related to Trading. This is why it’s now common for mainstream politicians to hard all about “doing what’s best for businesses”, unconditionally and never once using the caveat that Society should only help businesses which are good for Society.
The problem is exactly that we’ve been moving to 100% Capitalism, with not other ideology providing oversight over it.
Maybe Capitalism does work well as a means to optimize resource allocation and bottom-up economic coordination for optimal results in some markets, but it most certainly doesn’t work well at maximizing outcomes for the greatest number, in terms of systemic survival (Capitalism brough up Polution, which it most definitelly wasn’t solved by it, and now Global Warming) and doesn’t even seem to work well in markets which aren’t highly liquid with no negative externalities (i.e. naturally very competitive and non poluting or otherwise damaging).
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.
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.
I figure it’s like cable companies. They get you hooked with a low price that puts the squeeze on competitors, then slowly jack up the fees on existing customers. It’s a safe bet when peer companies are also raising prices because where can the customers jump ship to that isn’t the exact same enshittified service? Plus, if there’s a series they’ve got you hooked on, are you going to want to leave or just rationalize that nobody else is better?
IMO we’re going to see more “subscribe for [extended time period]” and save $2/mo or maybe even timed contracts with abusive cancellation fees.
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).
At the risk of sounding like a shill sure! (I’m not, just a happy user)
Kagi is a paid search engine. They just introduced a 10/month plan that made the news which led me to their trial. I signed up a day later.
Because I’m paying money I have the feeling that I’m not the product unlike other free search engines. There’s likely no nefarious manipulation of search results and it’s refreshing to see new features rolling out.
It’s not all roses tho. Your searches are now tied to you and who really knows what’s going on with your data behind the scenes. Everyone needs to make their own decisions based on their priorities.
It’s not all roses tho. Your searches are now tied to you and who really knows what’s going on with your data behind the scenes. Everyone needs to make their own decisions based on their priorities.
Exactly. It feels like we aren’t the product but we don’t actually know what it costs to run Kagi and whether the $10/mo is sustainable or just a way to reduce the losses till they get sufficient market share. Upon which they might start doing things to recover the losses. I’m also paying for it but this has been at the back of my head. Until they’re a non-profit with similar transparency to Wikimedia, it won’t rest. Speaking of, if one of the established, reputable internet non-profits like Wikimedia or Mozilla starts a paid search engine, I’d be all over it. I’d pay for it for as long as I can afford it.
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.
Except for the fact that they aren’t replacing keywords on the user end, simply matching advertiser keywords to a broader range of keywords specifically for the ad results.
Claiming they are replacing user keywords for higher value ones is absolutely incorrect, which is what the article they got that info from specifically claimed before it was retracted.
They aren’t taking watch searches and showing only luxury brand results, they are taking luxury watch searches and showing generic ads for “watches” alongside the relevant search results through the normal Algorithm which ties to find what it thinks is most relevant to those keywords.
That latter one is something all search engines do and without doing so they wouldn’t be very useful to the average person who doesn’t know about search operators and advanced search refining tools.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Mmm, but what’s their plan to resist enshittification? After all, Google started out as “fundamentally different, user-centric.” What will Kagi do when their market penetration peaks and the business managers demand more growth?
Exactly. The simple fact is, people need to get more willing to pay for things with money instead of personal data. Nothing is free, but we like the idea that things don’t cost money, and instead we’ve allowed corporations to literally buy and monetize our very selves.
Problem is, a lot of people don't have a lot of money because of how the world has been allowed to go. Everything is funnelled towards the worst people who go unpunished somehow. There needs to be an uprising or something.
Just curious, in the hypothetical situation that 100% of users on the web used Kagi how is it any different? They’ll demand more growth at that point but how would they achieve it?
Well, if your argument is: “any company that becomes a monopoly will abuse monopoly power”, then sure I agree with you. You got me there!
My argument is: “given a reliable financial alternative to advertising, a company will be able to resist enshitification for a long time, as long as there is no absolute tyrannical monopoly.”
I assumed the last part was implied and I’m sorry for the confusion!
Makes sense, but yea it didn’t really answer the overall question of “if it hits peak market penetration how will it avoid going the Google route” since google also started with the same premise. I suppose the answer is hope it doesn’t become a monopoly
While I agree that this does avoid enshitification, it’s always possible for a privately owned company to IPO. That’s why all of us are even here to begin with
The best options would be an open source, donation supported search engine, but the money required to host/develop that is immense.
We are all freeloading off of Lemmy right now, unless you are donating to the people who are running the servers. The cost to run a search engine is much higher though – kagi pays (iirc) double digit cents for each search, even before development costs, with the average user doing 700 searches a month. The costs are way higher.
It’s $.0125, so 1.25 cents not double digits like I thought. They also average 27 searches per day per user. So an average of 821.25 searches per user per month, meaning a cost of $10.27 per month.
It’s also certainly possible for a privately owned company (even one owned by a single individual) to undergo enshitification, it is only (if anything) less likely.
I’ve used it this month a bit for the free 100 searches, but found it rather similar to my Google results. Can someone enlighten me in how they provide a better service?
I find the results to be cleaner and more relevant at least. With Kagi the relevant link is usually first or second link (like Google used to be) and the same search on Google I sometimes have to scroll down about 3-4 pages till I get to something relevant. Worse some of the ads Google is pushing to the top are misleading or completely contrary to what I’m looking for.
Kagi allowing me to ban domains (bye bye pinterest) and boost others has also been pretty helpful.
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.
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.
I know I’m dreaming here, but central internet services like google search and youtube should be utilities controlled by the public.
The video pool that Youtube draws from, generated by the public, should be public property, hosted on public servers, internationalized somehow, with an opensource market of frontend interfaces and algorithms to deliver that content to people, instead of one youtube algorithm and one interface designed to meet the profit incentives of google. People should be free to use the algorithm and interface they find most useful.
Former govt IT employee here. Trust me, you really don’t want the govt in charge of media platforms. So what’s the alternative? Well, at least in the USA, we have this idea of publishers and platforms baked into law, however, it’s mostly ignored because right now because the govt and media are on the same side. (Heyoo! The fourth estate aligns with the fifth column.) What we need is to fortify that idea AND entrench net neutrality into a formal perpetual law AND codify all wireless and wired communications as public utilities.
This was started over two decades ago, but never came about because the copyright cartel destroyed it. It was called peer to peer (p2p) tech.
The cartel even tried to pass laws which would allow them to control what media you could have on your computer. (The SSSCA and later CBDTPA) This is where the term Digital Rights Management came from.
Pre-Google Internet wasn’t exactly great either. If you think current Google is bad, wait until you are stuck with AltaVista, a 5MB email inbox and video sharing without Youtube or services like AOL or MSN that try to outright replace the Web. Google got big in the first place because what they offered was substantially better than the competition.
If you travel back 15 years ago or so, you have Google at its best, providing lots of great services and still innovating.
I was there and can tell you we had a peak of quality maybe in the 00s and have been going backwards towards worse than the early Internet really fast in the last decade or so.
Sure, if you want to find info on something, now you can now watch a glitzy 1080p video with lots of fancy graphics on Youtube of some guy explaining it - it will have a clickbait title and be interspected with Ads, sponsor segments, and it will take half an hour to explain something which in the old days you could read all about on a website in 10 minutes and actually came out knowing more about it.
The funny bit is that the old website is still there, but if you use Google to search for it that video and another 20 like it will be shoved in front of you, along with “sponsored results” and a ton of SEO-optimized clickbait websites which you’ll have to wade through to find the one needle in between all that straw (and meanwhile the system is designed to distract you away from what you want, so you’ll have to battle your own subconscious pulls to stay the course).
And don’t get me started on how you actually had a decent expectation of privacy on the Internet back in the late 90s and early 00s whilst nowadays all dominat players almost force you (in some cases actually do) to give them your phone number to better link your various online and offline profiles in multiple devices.
IMHO, the actual Internet in software, usability and software systems terms now is not superior to what we had in the late 90s, early 00s, it’s the electronics tech (mainly thanks to bandwidth and portable computing devices) that’s superior.
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.
telegraph.co.uk
Oldest