3 ms·

The second option isn’t really meant for social media anyway. It’s meant for traditional publishers such as newspapers. If this goes through I don’t think it w

The second option isn’t really meant for social media anyway. It’s meant for traditional publishers such as newspapers. If this goes through I don’t think it will be such a big boost for Google search as you suggest. For one thing, it has no effect on OpenAI and other LLM providers. That’s a real problem for Google, as I see a long term trend away from traditional search and towards LLMs for getting questions answered, especially among young people. Also note that YouTube is social media and features a curation algorithm to deliver personalized content feeds. As for social media, I think we’re better off without it! There’s countless stories in the news about all the damage it’s causing to society. I don’t think we’ll be able to roll all that back but I hope we’ll be able to make things better.

whatshisface 2y ago
If the ruling was upheld, Google wouldn't gain any new liability for putting a TikTok-like frontend on video search results; the only reason they're not doing it now is that all existing platforms (including YouTube) funnel all the recommendation clicks back into themselves. If YouTube had to stop offering recommendations, Google could take over their user experience and spin them off into a hosting company that derived its revenue from AdSense and its traffic from "Google Shorts." This ruling is not a ban on algorithms, it's a ban on the vertical integration between search or recommendation and hosting that today makes it possible for search engines other than Google to see traffic.
- chongli 2y ago
  I actually don't think Google search will be protected in its current form. Google doesn't show you unadulterated search results anymore, they personalize (read: editorialize) the results based on the data they've collected on you, the user. This is why two different people entering the same query can see dramatically different results. If Google wants to preserve their safe harbour protections they'll need to roll back to a neutral algorithm that delivers the same results to everyone given an identical query. This won't be the end of the world for Google but it will produce lower quality results (at least in the eyes of normal users who aren't annoyed by the personalization). Lower quality results will further open the doors to LLMs as a competitor to search.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Newspapers editorialize and also give the same results to everybody.
    - chongli 2y ago
      And newspapers decide every single word they publish, because they’re liable for it. If a newspaper defames someone they can be sued. This whole case comes down to having your cake and eating it too. Newspapers don’t have that. They have free speech protections but they aren’t absolved of liability for what they publish. They aren’t protected under section 230. If the ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, Google will have to choose: section 230 (and no editorial control) or first amendment plus liability for everything they publish on SERPs.

whatshisface 2y ago

If the ruling was upheld, Google wouldn't gain any new liability for putting a TikTok-like frontend on video search results; the only reason they're not doing it now is that all existing platforms (including YouTube) funnel all the recommendation clicks back into themselves. If YouTube had to stop offering recommendations, Google could take over their user experience and spin them off into a hosting company that derived its revenue from AdSense and its traffic from "Google Shorts." This ruling is not a ban on algorithms, it's a ban on the vertical integration between search or recommendation and hosting that today makes it possible for search engines other than Google to see traffic.

chongli 2y ago
I actually don't think Google search will be protected in its current form. Google doesn't show you unadulterated search results anymore, they personalize (read: editorialize) the results based on the data they've collected on you, the user. This is why two different people entering the same query can see dramatically different results. If Google wants to preserve their safe harbour protections they'll need to roll back to a neutral algorithm that delivers the same results to everyone given an identical query. This won't be the end of the world for Google but it will produce lower quality results (at least in the eyes of normal users who aren't annoyed by the personalization). Lower quality results will further open the doors to LLMs as a competitor to search.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Newspapers editorialize and also give the same results to everybody.
  - chongli 2y ago
    And newspapers decide every single word they publish, because they’re liable for it. If a newspaper defames someone they can be sued. This whole case comes down to having your cake and eating it too. Newspapers don’t have that. They have free speech protections but they aren’t absolved of liability for what they publish. They aren’t protected under section 230. If the ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, Google will have to choose: section 230 (and no editorial control) or first amendment plus liability for everything they publish on SERPs.