I wonder how conscious the choice of “goggle” was because of its visual similarity to google. They could have called these “lens” or “vistas” or “scenes” or “fi

I wonder how conscious the choice of “goggle” was because of its visual similarity to google. They could have called these “lens” or “vistas” or “scenes” or “filters” or so many other terms, but they chose the one that was ironically most like google (one of the main sources of problems as addressed in the paper). Do the authors wistfully hope for a future in 20 years where we refer to “goggling” for things and “goggle it”? And “remember when” we used to google things? So MySpace.