4 ms·

Brin wasn’t bothered to wield any of that power to try to arrest the decline in Google’s search quality. He wasn’t bothered to direct the Chrome team to support

by leoc 9mo ago

Brin wasn’t bothered to wield any of that power to try to arrest the decline in Google’s search quality. He wasn’t bothered to direct the Chrome team to support MathML, or to bring back Google Reader, or do anything about a hundred small insults like, say, the deletion of YouTube comments with URLs to keep the rubes inside the casino. But he was able and willing to come back and wield his clout because he was bored and wanted to play with AI. As someone who’s old enough to remember how much leeway Google used to get from governments and the public at large on the basis that Page and Brin were nice young men who could be relied on to be responsible stewards it’s a little galling. Don’t give Mr. Brin any belly-rubs until he tells us when Reader is coming back.

skibidithink 9mo ago
He saw AI as an existential threat to Google.
- dv_dt 9mo ago
  Enshittification of existing money making activities of Google independently of AI is also an existential threat. Parts of the threat are codependent on AI, but there is little reason to open the door wider as they have.
  - skibidithink 9mo ago
    There are no obvious threats to AdWords (aside from LLM chatbots) and YouTube.
- leoc 9mo ago
  Right, though it's also reasonably clear that part of the story there is that he finds a high-stakes AI race personally interesting and exciting on a technical and a business level. Conversely it's also fairly clear that he finds doing anything about the steady encrudification of Google to be a big snooze. (Even though it may also be a long-term, though less dramatic, problem for the company's future health, exactly the sort of long-term issue which Google's dual-stock structure was supposed to empower Page and Brin to care about and act on.) But in any case, whatever his mix of motivations are, he's able to act within Google on things he cares about. He is also perfectly able to act on a number of the issues at Google which have significantly bad effects on its users and on the population of Earth at large. (Not all of them, to be sure: there are clearly some problems which would be very hard to fix, alongside a number of no-brainers.) He evidently just isn't willing, because he doesn't care about them.
bigyabai 9mo ago
That's great and all, but you're anthropomorphizing the advertisement company.
- OJFord 9mo ago
  Where?
  - actionfromafar 9mo ago
    Maybe a spin on "anthropomorphize Larry Ellison at your peril"?
YouAreWRONGtoo 9mo ago
[dead]
elictronic 9mo ago
Everything you are mentioning are user issues. AI search myspacing googles ad business is an investor issue.
- lionkor 9mo ago
  They're all Google issues.
  - bell-cot 9mo ago
    When you're the 900 lbs. gorilla, you can get away with a whole lotta shit. And "Don't Be Evil" was a long time ago in a Google far, far away.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  User issues have an annoying habit of eventually becoming investor issues so you better deal with them while they are still 'just' user issues.
alex1138 9mo ago
Not just links, either Youtube comments are completely censored in real time with some sort of AI, it's horrible
- SXX 9mo ago
  Yet Google cant remove porn bots with 99% similar usernames or avatars.
  - alex1138 9mo ago
    I do think about this in the context of other tech companies, the "bidirectionality of enforcement", or whatever you want to call it Let's say you have Facebook, which is notorious for banning people yet never seems to ban the things people report that should be banned. That's a real life example, but take any hypothetical company If someone posts x bad thing and doesn't get banned, do we immediately take our torches and storm the premeses to protest? Maybe, maybe not; "look, scale is hard" (and sometimes calls to remove things outright get politicized, as seen in the last few years, so sometimes it's a tricky line) That would be... not fine, but more fine than it is now. The lack of fairness in the bidirectionality ensures that you, Joe Schmoe, get a month ban for calling someone a jerk while the most egregious hate or racism or... anything... gets a quick check followed by This Does Not Violate Our Community Guidelines (And of course because these services are monopolies, well, too bad, you just have to suffer. Hope you don't need the information from that Facebook page, because Facebook will tend to make it borderline impossible to view something public without an account)
    - SXX 9mo ago
      I think companies like Google dont even try like they are "Too Big to be Regulated". Facebook is much worse because everyghing on there is user gemerated. Any small company would be just crushed by governments if they would have similar issues.
      - scottyah 9mo ago
        I think they are similar to FedEx. FedEx knows that millions of packages per day are transporting illegal goods, any bad enough accident shows it. However, FedEx would absolutely go bankrupt if they tried to open every package and make sure the contents were good. At the end of the day, that's the government's job. If the DEA and ATF wants to staff every shipping hub with people checking every package, that's fine by them (though admittedly it would hurt revenues). For Google and Facebook and all the other user-content sites, it's just impossible to actually, fully uphold the law themselves, so their best bet is just to try to make it a pleasant experience for the users and leave upholding the law to the upholders of the law.
alliao 9mo ago
I loved google reader, many people were blogging and social network was "ick" as people immediately associated the term with okcupid/friendster(myspace?) and reader was decentralised and encouraged all walks of life to participate... maybe I just missed the vibes back then, gosh I was so hopeful

by leoc 9mo ago

skibidithink 9mo ago

He saw AI as an existential threat to Google.

dv_dt 9mo ago
Enshittification of existing money making activities of Google independently of AI is also an existential threat. Parts of the threat are codependent on AI, but there is little reason to open the door wider as they have.
- skibidithink 9mo ago
  There are no obvious threats to AdWords (aside from LLM chatbots) and YouTube.
leoc 9mo ago
Right, though it's also reasonably clear that part of the story there is that he finds a high-stakes AI race personally interesting and exciting on a technical and a business level. Conversely it's also fairly clear that he finds doing anything about the steady encrudification of Google to be a big snooze. (Even though it may also be a long-term, though less dramatic, problem for the company's future health, exactly the sort of long-term issue which Google's dual-stock structure was supposed to empower Page and Brin to care about and act on.) But in any case, whatever his mix of motivations are, he's able to act within Google on things he cares about. He is also perfectly able to act on a number of the issues at Google which have significantly bad effects on its users and on the population of Earth at large. (Not all of them, to be sure: there are clearly some problems which would be very hard to fix, alongside a number of no-brainers.) He evidently just isn't willing, because he doesn't care about them.

bigyabai 9mo ago

That's great and all, but you're anthropomorphizing the advertisement company.

OJFord 9mo ago
Where?
- actionfromafar 9mo ago
  Maybe a spin on "anthropomorphize Larry Ellison at your peril"?

YouAreWRONGtoo 9mo ago

[dead]

elictronic 9mo ago

Everything you are mentioning are user issues. AI search myspacing googles ad business is an investor issue.

lionkor 9mo ago
They're all Google issues.
- bell-cot 9mo ago
  When you're the 900 lbs. gorilla, you can get away with a whole lotta shit. And "Don't Be Evil" was a long time ago in a Google far, far away.
jacquesm 9mo ago
User issues have an annoying habit of eventually becoming investor issues so you better deal with them while they are still 'just' user issues.

alex1138 9mo ago

Not just links, either Youtube comments are completely censored in real time with some sort of AI, it's horrible

SXX 9mo ago
Yet Google cant remove porn bots with 99% similar usernames or avatars.
- alex1138 9mo ago
  I do think about this in the context of other tech companies, the "bidirectionality of enforcement", or whatever you want to call it Let's say you have Facebook, which is notorious for banning people yet never seems to ban the things people report that should be banned. That's a real life example, but take any hypothetical company If someone posts x bad thing and doesn't get banned, do we immediately take our torches and storm the premeses to protest? Maybe, maybe not; "look, scale is hard" (and sometimes calls to remove things outright get politicized, as seen in the last few years, so sometimes it's a tricky line) That would be... not fine, but more fine than it is now. The lack of fairness in the bidirectionality ensures that you, Joe Schmoe, get a month ban for calling someone a jerk while the most egregious hate or racism or... anything... gets a quick check followed by This Does Not Violate Our Community Guidelines (And of course because these services are monopolies, well, too bad, you just have to suffer. Hope you don't need the information from that Facebook page, because Facebook will tend to make it borderline impossible to view something public without an account)
  - SXX 9mo ago
    I think companies like Google dont even try like they are "Too Big to be Regulated". Facebook is much worse because everyghing on there is user gemerated. Any small company would be just crushed by governments if they would have similar issues.
    - scottyah 9mo ago
      I think they are similar to FedEx. FedEx knows that millions of packages per day are transporting illegal goods, any bad enough accident shows it. However, FedEx would absolutely go bankrupt if they tried to open every package and make sure the contents were good. At the end of the day, that's the government's job. If the DEA and ATF wants to staff every shipping hub with people checking every package, that's fine by them (though admittedly it would hurt revenues). For Google and Facebook and all the other user-content sites, it's just impossible to actually, fully uphold the law themselves, so their best bet is just to try to make it a pleasant experience for the users and leave upholding the law to the upholders of the law.

alliao 9mo ago

I loved google reader, many people were blogging and social network was "ick" as people immediately associated the term with okcupid/friendster(myspace?) and reader was decentralised and encouraged all walks of life to participate... maybe I just missed the vibes back then, gosh I was so hopeful