4 ms·

Libraries are possible because they're discriminating. You can't catalog and organize _everything_. This is the flaw in the Google model. It was easier to ig

Libraries are possible because they're discriminating. You can't catalog and organize _everything_. This is the flaw in the Google model. It was easier to ignore when very little of the "world's information" actually existed on the internet. Now that even a tiny additional fraction of that information, along with the obvious desire to manipulate and control some of it, has arrived this model completely falls apart. It was doomed from the start, and there was never any connection between organization information, and actually solving real world problems. No surprise the world is in worse shape than it was before and Google has a bunch of money it has no idea how to actually spend on the core problem.

b112 2y ago
It can be fixed, and "Google" referenced as "a whole lot of intelligent people" could fix it. Easily. They just don't have any massive advantage to do so. Their goal has ways always been capture. Keep us on their portal. Well they're succeeding, because they fill pages of response with their own data, and the alternative is to click poor results. They have a vested interest to keep you on their page. It doesn't matter that their buffonerific answers are often gibberish, and so many times very wrong. Or worse subtly wrong. Those answers keep 99.9% of the people on Google only. And just take another look, too. How many of the responses aren't just their horrid AI junk, but many of the rest are youtube. Why spend time fixing main search, when it being broken pushes people to stay on google.com, or go to youtube? They can fix it, they just don't want to.
- akira2501 2y ago
  The "world's information" includes things as banal as "what did everyone have for breakfast yesterday?" And "what about the day before?" There is simply _too much_ information. You cannot economically approach this problem. It doesn't matter how clever your staff is. What you're describing is the fact that the _stated objective_ and the _profitable outcomes_ are two different things. We've all known that since they originally printed it.
  - b112 2y ago
    This isn't the issue were discussing. The amount of data is not a relevant issue currently. The issue is the inclusion and ranking of easily discernable junk. Google has stopped caring, for my cited reasons, and can tackle this if they want. There is nothing preventing this other than it actually helping them by making their products preferable. For example, eliminating any page with referral links. Eliminating copycats. No, it's not an issue for them. This alone would get rid of 1/2 the junk. But that would reduce their silo. And further? It would mean that other search engines which buy Google search results would benefit too! Far better to show their picks on their first page results, whist keeping lower quality answers in their general search results. They can show competition exists, without really helping that competition, and people stay siloed.
- eastbound 2y ago
  Breaking the entire internet (and by that I mean, promoting AI-generated SEO websites to the dismay of everyone) will only help push people towards AI engines. It’s only worth it if they’re confident in their own ChatGPT.
trod123 2y ago
Google never intended to solve the problem, it was meant to collect and organize information on people, not contents. The flaw itself is in the standard business model today where businesses are funded upfront by banks in ponzi scheme structures. Enshittification is the natural third stage of these schemes after upfront benefits have been realized. You burn all bridges going through, make dependent, then become a state run entity (if you are invaluable). Its a common tactic. The problems people see with google aren't really as they see it at the surface. The issues are the same as the structural problems with central planning in a non-market condition. There are impossible to solve, intractable problems, and google knows this but the trade-off is in the short-term they get a lot of power and control, and if they are deceptive about it along the way gullible people will be fooled if they don't pay attention until its too late. You see this most clearly demonstrated in their leaked Selfish Ledger. For those that don't know, its filled with fallacy, and promises that only lead to destructive outcomes and is heavily skewed in marxist thought.

b112 2y ago

It can be fixed, and "Google" referenced as "a whole lot of intelligent people" could fix it. Easily. They just don't have any massive advantage to do so. Their goal has ways always been capture. Keep us on their portal. Well they're succeeding, because they fill pages of response with their own data, and the alternative is to click poor results. They have a vested interest to keep you on their page. It doesn't matter that their buffonerific answers are often gibberish, and so many times very wrong. Or worse subtly wrong. Those answers keep 99.9% of the people on Google only. And just take another look, too. How many of the responses aren't just their horrid AI junk, but many of the rest are youtube. Why spend time fixing main search, when it being broken pushes people to stay on google.com, or go to youtube? They can fix it, they just don't want to.

akira2501 2y ago
The "world's information" includes things as banal as "what did everyone have for breakfast yesterday?" And "what about the day before?" There is simply _too much_ information. You cannot economically approach this problem. It doesn't matter how clever your staff is. What you're describing is the fact that the _stated objective_ and the _profitable outcomes_ are two different things. We've all known that since they originally printed it.
- b112 2y ago
  This isn't the issue were discussing. The amount of data is not a relevant issue currently. The issue is the inclusion and ranking of easily discernable junk. Google has stopped caring, for my cited reasons, and can tackle this if they want. There is nothing preventing this other than it actually helping them by making their products preferable. For example, eliminating any page with referral links. Eliminating copycats. No, it's not an issue for them. This alone would get rid of 1/2 the junk. But that would reduce their silo. And further? It would mean that other search engines which buy Google search results would benefit too! Far better to show their picks on their first page results, whist keeping lower quality answers in their general search results. They can show competition exists, without really helping that competition, and people stay siloed.
eastbound 2y ago
Breaking the entire internet (and by that I mean, promoting AI-generated SEO websites to the dismay of everyone) will only help push people towards AI engines. It’s only worth it if they’re confident in their own ChatGPT.

trod123 2y ago

Google never intended to solve the problem, it was meant to collect and organize information on people, not contents. The flaw itself is in the standard business model today where businesses are funded upfront by banks in ponzi scheme structures. Enshittification is the natural third stage of these schemes after upfront benefits have been realized. You burn all bridges going through, make dependent, then become a state run entity (if you are invaluable). Its a common tactic. The problems people see with google aren't really as they see it at the surface. The issues are the same as the structural problems with central planning in a non-market condition. There are impossible to solve, intractable problems, and google knows this but the trade-off is in the short-term they get a lot of power and control, and if they are deceptive about it along the way gullible people will be fooled if they don't pay attention until its too late. You see this most clearly demonstrated in their leaked Selfish Ledger. For those that don't know, its filled with fallacy, and promises that only lead to destructive outcomes and is heavily skewed in marxist thought.