- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,553
- Reaction score
- 24,951
You ever see him on Rogan? It was hysterical. Brutal.He's a hyperkinetic politically extreme whacko. For a while there during the early days of "Adam Ruins Everything" he was good, but he drifted into far left.
I tried watching the vid you posted, but only got a couple minutes in before the meth-schtick became overwhelming.
'If you think it's free, then you're the product' is the rule.- Google earns its income from advertisements.
- To maximise its income, it tailors its search engine to present websites that show those advertisements.
- Websites are configured to optimise their presentation near the top of the search results.
- Uniform sites result, with what's left of information drowning in search-optimised dross.
- AI is making things worse.
Google is the default search engine because it pays companies like Apple to present it as such, pushing other search engines to irrelevance. Anti-trust laws should be enforced against Google, just as Microsoft experienced.
I have noticed that, too. Also that when I do accronym-loaded searches (hint: NASA, NRO) the search engine ruins it trying to enforce spellcheck - resulting in nonsensical garbage I have to ignore.One article I read a few months ago pointed out that google often doesn't search for the term you enter, but for one rewritten to prioritise advertiser results. So a query for X may be executed as 'who sells X', etc.
He's a hyperkinetic politically extreme whacko.
I have noticed that, too. Also that when I do accronym-loaded searches (hint: NASA, NRO) the search engine ruins it trying to enforce spellcheck - resulting in nonsensical garbage I have to ignore
No, but I will. Thanks for the tip.You ever see him on Rogan?
Not sure if it's on purpose or a result of ever increasing cost-cutting. (Throw the abomination known as Windows 11 on that pile.)Enshittification - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Some people can't handle power and/or lack integrity. One would have thought there would be a higher bar for moderators.I will note for the record that this is not what I wrote. It was censored by moderators who apparently disliked what I actually and *accurately* said. Which is both ironic and disturbing.
Google literally could not give less of a fuck. Priwnote.com paid for their traffic, Google will keep sending it to them.
He's a hyperkinetic
There are actually a lot of decent channels on Youtube. Sure, to paraphrase Cartman, "you have to wade through a lot of crap to find gold" but it's there.Yes, everybody on Youtube sounds like a car salesman that just did a line of cocaine on the hood of a Dodge Challenger scatpack.
You are right there. It took me many years to find good content on YouTube. The problem is that either the algorithm stifles the potential reach of good content in favor of safe, ad-friendly content, or YouTube moderation shadowbans good content for "violating" their doublespeak terms of service.There are actually a lot of decent channels on Youtube. Sure, to paraphrase Cartman, "you have to wade through a lot of crap to find gold" but it's there.
Absolutely spot on about adding "reddit" into certain searches to get real opinions...
(Young Sheldon voice) Oh dear. Same McKinsey that was used by French President Macron, and triggered one heck of a colossal political shitstorm. I see that they have... pedigree on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.But do you know who has? Sundar Pichai, who previously worked at McKinsey — arguably the most morally abhorrent company that has ever existed, having played roles both in the 2008 financial crisis (where it encouraged banks to load up on debt and flawed mortgage-backed securities) and the ongoing opioid crisis, where it effectively advised Purdue Pharma on how to “growth hack” sales of Oxycontin. McKinsey has paid nearly $1bn over several settlements due to its work with Purdue. I’m getting sidetracked, but one last point. McKinsey is actively anti-labor. When a company brings in a McKinsey consultant, they’re often there to advise on how to “cut costs,” which inevitably means layoffs and outsourcing. McKinsey is to the middle class what flesh-eating bacteria is to healthy tissue.
For a brief period a few years ago I used to wonder why Google kept discontinuing useful tools to narrow down your search results. There was a time when, with some skill, you could compose your query so cunningly, that (at least for English language searches) it was hardly ever necessary to look beyond the first page of results. Then I figured out the dynamic explained here and wondered no more.
The one thing I haven't quite been able to determine is whether it was inevitable or not. Realistically speaking, a pay-to-play model (as briefly suggested in the video) was a non-starter. Sure, if you were to ask me today I'd say "Absolutely, why not?". But 20-year old me, while having a vague inkling that it was a good idea and why, would have said "No, I don't have the money and all available payment models are super awkward".
At the same time, Google's very rise to dominance demonstrates that it is entirely feasible to prevail against the competition on merit rather than sheer financial clout. Can you be profitable though? Not sure, maybe somebody can research their financial statements and work out whether their initial phase of user-orientated service was merely a deliberate laying of the ground work for a later lucrative monopoly, or if it unintentionally succumbed to incentives that strongly promoted corporate greed.
An idea which seems alien, even dangerous that nevertheless has occurred to me is a "public search engine". Hear me out - it seems to continue to work reasonably well in the field of broadcasting. Public broadcasting institutions certainly have their share of flaws, but many examples show that with appropriate firewalls and checks and balances they deliver a much superior product to private networks. Decidedly not optimal, but still markedly better if done right. At least for non-entertainment purposes anyway, but that's exactly where it's most critical, right?
He goes into some of what is publicly known about the behind the scenes decisions that led to the deterioration of search.
I can see it was edited by a moderator but not the original post.I will note for the record that this is not what I wrote. It was censored by moderators who apparently disliked what I actually and *accurately* said. Which is both ironic and disturbing.
until the last few years, Google search was awesome.Hmm, interesting conversation here. 2009 to 2015 I was in a couple online health support groups for autoimmune disease and somehow became very good at locating online research documents to answer questions other members had. 31 times out of 32 Google would drop exactly what I wanted right in my lap.
Even today Google and I seem to mostly be on the same wavelength about what I'm looking for.
Except when my search terms include some technical word that's also an automobile part.![]()
Please refrain from comments like these in future. You are just trying to throw oil on a fire.Some people can't handle power and/or lack integrity. One would have thought there would be a higher bar for moderators.
Frankly I have no interest in the political stuff and confine my doses to BBC World Service news.
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/See what I mean? Everybody likes to bitch about the Beeb, but what even the most vocal critics can never seem to come up with is a superior, non-public alternative. Not even close in fact. A model to at least control the damage (not going to dignify it with the term "solution"), perhaps?
All three were on stage once...Penn's gone PETA