5 ms·

I think the analogy to natural selection is apt. So is it really Google's fault? Seems like a consequence of a fitness function. And even if there were 4 compet

I think the analogy to natural selection is apt. So is it really Google's fault? Seems like a consequence of a fitness function. And even if there were 4 competitive search engines in the world, each spammy site would optimize for one (or would even have 4 versions that each optimized for a single search engine).

luckylion 4y ago
If nature was a conscious entity that optimized for some goal, I think we'd say it would be at fault. I'm sure it's not Google's intention to ruin the web, it's just something they happily accept as a by-product of their optimization strategy towards maximum value extraction via ads. Like some chicken farmers happily accepting creating chicken hell because it lowers cost. I don't think they set out to torture chickens and go "hey, I'll start a chicken farm as a cover story".
marginalia_nu 4y ago
If you had multiple search engines, say four of them like in your example, then the rewards for successfully specializing in either one of them would be a fourth what it is now, meanwhile you would have to put in four times the work to maintain four versions of the site, you would have to conduct four times as much research to maintain your advantage. The economies tip to make specialization less rewarding. Just as in nature, monoculture rewards specialization, whereas ecological diversity rewards generalization. Not that specialization doesn't exist in diverse ecosystems, it's just not as devastating.