3 ms·
> I doubt this is what will happen as Google doesn't exist to serve it's users. There intent is to serve users with quality, truthful information. If all the
by Pxtl 9y ago
> I doubt this is what will happen as Google doesn't exist to serve it's users.
There intent is to serve users with quality, truthful information. If all the quality information goes out of business and gets replaced with "Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: Obama failed New Orleans during Katrina!!" then Google doesn't have any more quality information anymore.
Google and Facebook are becoming acutely aware of how easily dishonest propaganda can propagate through their systems and are trying to find a solution for that. One step is making sure that people who have to make a living finding the truth for us all have the means to get paid.
- pessimizer 9y ago> Their intent is to serve users with quality, truthful information. I thought their intent was to serve me the websites that I'm looking for. If their aim it to define truth, I want to see them broken up.
- ehsankia 9y agoAlso, it's a very small percent of users who dislike it (or even know AMP is a thing), and majority of them are developers who don't want their site cached. To claim that they don't serve their users is ridiculous.
- erentz 9y agoShould Google give these providers payments in that case? It doesn't help if the first five links I get shown on Google I click only to find nothing but a pay wall. Maybe the money flow should be: 1. Google is best search engine, attracts most eyeballs looking to find content 2. Advertisers pay google to show their ads to my eyeballs 3. I use Google because it provides good, true, accurate content, when I click on a link to nytimes.com Google should pay nytimes.com a portion of the revenue they collected Almost, kinda, makes sense maybe? Or maybe this'll be the revenue model for a post-Google source of information.