5 ms·

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 searchin

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.

Consultant32452 5y ago
When they hide data you're obviously and explicitly looking for they are making the internet less open. Look at the google vs duckduckgo search results for this: "How a Convicted Terrorist used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify Targets"
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Since I know how Google crawl and index work, and I know how the right-wing noise machine works, I suggest a very likely explanation is that Cernovich used Google webmaster tools to remove the URL from their index for the specific purpose of whipping conspiracy theories on Twitter.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    That’s an interesting theory, any data to support it? Has this Cernovich guy done stuff like this in the past?
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      I have as much data to support my theory as the other person does to support theirs. All we know is the page isn't in the results on Google. And yes, Cernovich has a history of PR stunts.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        You might have a point if this wasn't just the most recent of a giant pile of censorship from Google. Medical doctors can't discuss possible treatments for COVID. Medical doctors can't discuss side effects from vaccines. Senate testimony where an alleged Ukrainian whistleblower is named is banned. If you even say the name, not even in any relevant context, you will get banned. The list goes on and on. There is nothing "open" about the Google web. But again, I don't believe there's anything I or anyone else could say that would change your mind.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        It’s a sad state of affairs. It’s like they keep saying “stop hitting me!” while they hit you. My little brother used to do that. Google isn’t big brother, Google is my little brother.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    I don't believe there's anything I or anyone else could say that would change your mind.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
The biggest issue is that Google Search kills its own sources, which is shortsighted. Google constantly steals manually curated quality content, and regurgitates it in Knowledge Graph without attribution, such that the people who did all the work to develop and curate that information aren't compensated. The end result: As the web Google stole from dies off, Google increasingly has worse, less accurate sources it has to draw from. Journalists are at the forefront of this, and you can see several countries moving to charge Google for lifting news content to combat this. But there's a lot of other sources on the web that probably won't be so lucky.
neolog 5y ago
> Data behind paywalls/logins is useless to them. Sites are often not behind a paywall if you reach them via google (and only google).
erdo 5y ago
Except of course Google is not a search engine company, Google is an advertising company
- Barrin92 5y ago
  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?
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    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.
    - cromwellian 5y ago
      Google doesn’t sell data, and Google’s primary purpose is Search and organizing information, ads is just the way it’s funded. 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.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        When those projects are found to not lock users and customers in Google ecosystem and/or not to bring ad revenue, those are axed with no remorse.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        You’re right on the not selling data directly. I should have been more precise. Google is in the business of collecting data and selling advertising using that data. For the purpose of making money. Search hasn’t been part of their purpose in decades. Let me ask you this, has search gotten better or worse in the last 5 - 10 years? Has their data collection gotten more invasive or less over the last 5 - 10 years? I think we both know what kind of company Google is once those questions are answered.
passivate 5y ago
Yes, while the web may seem "open" due to its fragmented nature of hosting, Google wants all content to reside in their own walled garden so it can quickly kill competition. AMP was a major play towards that. Also, all (?) their money makers are closed source and proprietary - which is just fine by me, but Google should own up to what they really are instead of projecting a fake "open" image of themselves.

Consultant32452 5y ago

When they hide data you're obviously and explicitly looking for they are making the internet less open. Look at the google vs duckduckgo search results for this: "How a Convicted Terrorist used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify Targets"

jeffbee 5y ago
Since I know how Google crawl and index work, and I know how the right-wing noise machine works, I suggest a very likely explanation is that Cernovich used Google webmaster tools to remove the URL from their index for the specific purpose of whipping conspiracy theories on Twitter.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  That’s an interesting theory, any data to support it? Has this Cernovich guy done stuff like this in the past?
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    I have as much data to support my theory as the other person does to support theirs. All we know is the page isn't in the results on Google. And yes, Cernovich has a history of PR stunts.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      You might have a point if this wasn't just the most recent of a giant pile of censorship from Google. Medical doctors can't discuss possible treatments for COVID. Medical doctors can't discuss side effects from vaccines. Senate testimony where an alleged Ukrainian whistleblower is named is banned. If you even say the name, not even in any relevant context, you will get banned. The list goes on and on. There is nothing "open" about the Google web. But again, I don't believe there's anything I or anyone else could say that would change your mind.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        It’s a sad state of affairs. It’s like they keep saying “stop hitting me!” while they hit you. My little brother used to do that. Google isn’t big brother, Google is my little brother.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I don't believe there's anything I or anyone else could say that would change your mind.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

The biggest issue is that Google Search kills its own sources, which is shortsighted. Google constantly steals manually curated quality content, and regurgitates it in Knowledge Graph without attribution, such that the people who did all the work to develop and curate that information aren't compensated. The end result: As the web Google stole from dies off, Google increasingly has worse, less accurate sources it has to draw from. Journalists are at the forefront of this, and you can see several countries moving to charge Google for lifting news content to combat this. But there's a lot of other sources on the web that probably won't be so lucky.

neolog 5y ago

> Data behind paywalls/logins is useless to them. Sites are often not behind a paywall if you reach them via google (and only google).

erdo 5y ago

Except of course Google is not a search engine company, Google is an advertising company

Barrin92 5y ago
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?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  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.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    Google doesn’t sell data, and Google’s primary purpose is Search and organizing information, ads is just the way it’s funded. 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.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      When those projects are found to not lock users and customers in Google ecosystem and/or not to bring ad revenue, those are axed with no remorse.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      You’re right on the not selling data directly. I should have been more precise. Google is in the business of collecting data and selling advertising using that data. For the purpose of making money. Search hasn’t been part of their purpose in decades. Let me ask you this, has search gotten better or worse in the last 5 - 10 years? Has their data collection gotten more invasive or less over the last 5 - 10 years? I think we both know what kind of company Google is once those questions are answered.

passivate 5y ago

Yes, while the web may seem "open" due to its fragmented nature of hosting, Google wants all content to reside in their own walled garden so it can quickly kill competition. AMP was a major play towards that. Also, all (?) their money makers are closed source and proprietary - which is just fine by me, but Google should own up to what they really are instead of projecting a fake "open" image of themselves.