No, Google Isn't Dying. Internet Search Is Better Than Ever if You Know How To Use It.
Getting the best information when we need it will likely always be a challenge, but the Reddit hack helps.

In February, the software engineer and blogger Dmitri Brereton wrote an essay titled "Google Search Is Dying" for his personal website. His two main arguments are that Google's advertising is messy and dominates the results page, while the actual search results are mostly junk sites that have been reverse-engineered to rank highly.
If you have never searched for something on Google and felt deeply dissatisfied by what it showed you, Brereton essentially argues, you are living in the Matrix. "What you don't realize is that you've been self-censoring yourself from searching most of the things you would have wanted to search," he writes. "You already know subconsciously that Google isn't going to return a good result."
I was living in the Matrix. Then, two days into my 5-month-old's ear infection, I got search-pilled.
We had taken him to a doctor, but no one told us what we should do if our baby's ears hurt so badly that he wouldn't eat. When we called the pediatrician's office following a daylong hunger strike, the nurse told us that if we couldn't get him to feed, he'd have to go to the emergency room.
Naturally, we turned to Google for a second opinion.
My first search query was "baby with ear infection won't eat," all in quotation marks. Google returned zero links to actual web pages, along with three ads, one of which invited me to "Browse Baby Ear Infection Pictures."
Without the quotation marks, the same search query returned what looked like the full buffet: a better class of ads up top, followed by links to pediatric and general health websites. But on closer examination, the results did not feel like what Brereton described to The New Yorker as "the authentic Web." Every link took me to a nearly identical hospital website or healthy living site, and they all said pretty much the same thing: "These are the symptoms of an ear infection. If you think your child has one, call a doctor."
Per Brereton's essay, there is a third and correct way to find answers for very specific questions: add the word Reddit to the end of your Google query. When I finally did that, just minutes before we were set to pack our screaming baby into a car seat and head for the hospital, the very first search result, from r/beyondthebump, was: "Tip for when baby has infection and won't eat or drink!" The second link took me to a post titled "2 yr old has stopped eating after starting antibiotics for an ear infection," from r/Parenting. These were not ads or reverse-engineered copypasta, but real humans sharing information with other real humans about my exact problem.
It took us only a few minutes to find the advice that unlocked our son's appetite. A Reddit user in England shared a tip from a nurse who told her to give the baby something salty to gnaw on and then wait for his thirst to get the better of his discomfort. This trick worked for us (we used Bamba), and no E.R. visit was necessary.
Brereton argues that the effectiveness of the Google-Reddit combo is damning for both platforms, since Reddit's own search function also doesn't work well alone. Most of the follow-up commentaries he inspired agree that the top layer of the internet is over-monetized, over-optimized junk. But for me, the Reddit hack was a reminder that getting the best information when we need it has always been a challenge and likely always will be.
"The best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy," F.A. Hayek wrote in "The Use of Knowledge in Society," published in The American Economic Review in 1945. "The knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form." Hayek was arguing against central economic planning, but that bit of wisdom also applies to firms and individuals. Most problems boil down to a knowledge problem.
Although it is almost certainly doing a better job than search.gov could, not even Google is capable of delivering "all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals." But it might get close if you add Reddit to your search query.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Internet Search Is Better Than Ever If You know How to Use It."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What was once new, innovative, and useful has become old, backwards, and useless. And no, it is not because it went stale, but because it thought it knew better what we wanted than the product itself. And it's rules could be exploited to our detrimi.
Search anything political on YouTube and your first dozen choices are all corporate media outlets with the same Narrative.
I noticed starting last week that YouTube is sneaking in links to videos from lib sites like YoungTurks, MSNBC.
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-07] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
The problem isn't that google won't give you results, the problem is the order in which it gives you results. Google is programmed, algorithmically, to give you results in a certain order to influence your thinking. This is why google "should" die.
Sounds like Reddit is one of those places where icky people are allowed to say icky things like, "Only women get pregnant."
Without a doubt, Reddit is one of the most censorious websites on the internet.
Ironic, given the original founders' vision.
I always thought corporate/government coordination was a central element of fascism, but it seems the authoritarian left is just as capable
No, do not say that on Reddit. You will be ban-hammered soooo fast.
Reddit is a progressive stronghold and the non-prog subs survive by keeping their heads down.
That said - it's actually a fuckload more permissive that Twitter or Facebook.
No, it's not. Reddit is every bid as all-in on the pedophiles and vile trans scum as twitter and Google.
As I understand it, there are other search engines than Google.
Goes to computer, types “other search engines” into Google.
The kicker though - they're all worse.
Not really. I get much better, non filtered results from both ddg and brave. Google has more returns but you have to sift through 7 pages to get to something not filtered. Even if you put a website and exact headline you won't find it on the first return page half the time if the article is in anyway political.
Problem with the duck duck go is that it is a meta search, so it is limited by the problems the other search engines have by default.
But, yeah, it's different. Less censored. Still just as much manipulated BS content on the first page, though. And it is degrading to the point where any search return is ads first.
It's not not really a search engine so much as it's a search engine aggregator combined with an anonymizer, to give you aggregated anonymous, rather than targeted results. And, I assume, they make some effort to filter out the non-relevant promoted results.
If the actual search engines DDG aggregates are all in agreement on biasing everybody's results, DDG won't save you from it.
Google is best for non-political or non-culture war stuff, but literally every other search engine, including Bing, is better on those topics.
I prefer Lycos.
Yes, but. Many of those "other search engines" use Google as their underlying search. There was an article on the issue of the hidden interconnections and dependencies of the supposedly-independent search engine alternatives right here on Reason a year or two ago.
Unfortunately, neither Google nor Reason's own search engine is good enough to help me find it today...
Please let us know which ones don’t censor. I’ll wait,
Is it just me or are these articles starting to read like something out of Terry Gilliam's Brazil?
We get five types of pattern covers for our ducts!
>Reddit hack
What kind of faggot browses that censorious shithole of a website? Oh yeah, Reason "journalists".
As usual, the headline doesn't actually match the content of the article. The whole article is a confirmation of the original article that said Google's ability to rank articles is being increasingly exploited. And Mr Riggs only rejoinder is, "This is better searching than it was in the past."
This is obviously not not true. Google has become less likely to provide you decent research material *BECAUSE OF AUTHORITARIANS AT GOOGLE*. Starting with the election of Trump in 2016, much of the Big Tech left decided that it was bad that people were trafficking in Wrong Information. At google, this expressed itself as a deeply suspicious view of comments. They would rather default to 20 search results with the same copy pasta than the chaos of conversations. Tweets were de-emphasized, as was reddit and other forums.
Even Reason was impacted, and they know it. I can guarantee you that it was no coincidence that comment links broke back in late 2021. When you click on the comment button today, it actually leads to a page that hides the comments from the search crawler. And, like many sites on the web, Reason did this because when google indexed its articles, the presence of comments began to be penalized by the search algorithm. You can see this today- try using google search to find the comments of people on this site. Back in 2020 the comments sections were indexed. Today they are not.
The fact that Reddit is searchable is a testament to Google's authoritarianism. They won't provide Reddit as a default. They would rather you see sites that appear official, rather than chance you seeing bad information from plebeians. But they will at least index Reddit because it (along with other companies) is censorship heavy- banning trumpers, covid deniers, etc.
Those damn authoritarians, forcing us to view advertising. What's next I wonder.
I didn't mention advertising at all, sarc. I am specifically talking about their search algorithm (not the paid search) which has de-emphasized "messy" comments in favor for official looking copy pasta. If you take the time to read, you will see actual examples of this being done- both in the original article, and my example of how Reason has changed its articles to hide comments from the search index.
Their business is selling advertising. So rather than jumping to nefarious conspiracy theories about how they're a bunch of authoritarians in league with political enemies controlling what people think, my first thought is how does this increase their bottom line.
Did you bother to read what he actually wrote?
Their motivations don't change the fact that they are doing it.
Their motivations for censorship and search result manipulation are not primarily advertisers but dictates from the state, using lucrative government contracts and threats of anti-trust enforcement as carrots and sticks.
but dictates from the state, using lucrative government contracts and threats of anti-trust enforcement as carrots and sticks.
I'm glad I don't live in your world. I'd be angry all the time at everything I see and hear.
Your underground world of ignorance? There was literal evidence in the Berenson discovery, along with other examples from government and admission from Zuckerberg. How do you even manage to put your pants on in the morning.
Did it make you cry?
Quit trolling and fuck off.
I'm happy for you that you are naively, blissfully ignorant.
But your ignorance doesn't change reality, and what I described is reality.
You are stupid.
Enjoy!
And I'm glad you know their motivations. You should use this talent of seeing into peoples' hearts for better things.
Their slack discussions have been leaked. You really do love living in ignorance.
They must have thought it was a good business decision. Heck if I had a business and could work some magic where you and your buddies don't know my business exists so my good customers are never assaulted by our hateful, partisan bullshit, I'd do it.
Yes, it is a "good business decision" to cave in to government demands backed up by threats by the government.
What it is not is a voluntary choice in a free market. And it is the antithesis of property rights.
I don't need to "see into people's hearts", these are simple facts. I have worked for multiple Silicon Valley companies and I know first hand what political and government pressures they are under.
This didn't start with a 2016 election. Search has been rigged ever since the ad based model incentivized those engines to keep eyeballs running around looking for good search results rather than sending those eyeballs on to an uncontrolled destination
Yes, but it went into overdrive when "misinformation" became a major point in media and the tech companies, pushed by a google-funded group starting around 2012.
Know your agrippa.
It went into overdrive when search engine optimization became a necessity for websites. Maybe 2000 or so.
Search engine tampering used to be such a scandal that it would have derailed an entire candidacy in "House of Cards", but when it happens in real life we have half the citizenry cheering it on.
That sort of thing really hit home for me after Snowden. Something like that should have shaken the free world to its core, and would have been the central conspiracy of some political thriller melodrama, barely raised a pulse.
I mean, they’re still going to murder Snowden, eventually. But everyone else could barely be bothered after 5 minutes. Or even called him a traitor.
(I’m typing this from my personal tracking device, so obviously I have my own issues)
"You can see this today- try using google search to find the comments of people on this site. Back in 2020 the comments sections were indexed. Today they are not."
You know, I'd noticed that problem, but hadn't realized the cause, thought it was just part of Google getting worse. Thanks for clearing that up.
But Google has absolutely gotten worse, the fact that there are work-arounds doesn't change that. It's possible it's gotten better for people who have no clue how to write a search string, but if you do know how, it's gotten enormously worse.
FYI, that was my (rather obscure) point with my comment above.
It's no happeningOk, it's happening, but it's not as bad as you say.
...
Yeah, doing an article about Google results and failing to mention the shaping of the message is a huge fail.
Promoted results are one thing... but we have been able to spot those for many years.
Erasing entire viewpoints is another thing entirely.
Back then one could search "Eat shit and die" and get back about 20 million sevo comments.
Indeed. "It isn't broke, you just use this work-around!"
Exactly so. Riggs completely misses the issue from the civil liberties standpoint. Neither google nor reddit are reputable when it comes to being objective providers of data, as you point out. This cannot be stressed enough. If we add google's horrific privacy practices, then there is no way to describe the site in positive terms.
This is not a Google problem. Any search engine that doesn't try to rank results at all will be largely useless.
The idea that some other search engine has a ranking algorithm that is not exploitable is non-sense. Such a non-exploitable ranking algorithm is simply not possible.
Google chooses to exploit themselves with their algorithms to rank their preferred narratives.
^THIS^
I don't expect a search engine to not rank results. I expect it to rank the results according to the search string I gave it, rather than some criteria that are irrelevant to my finding what I'm looking for, rather than what the search engine would rather I find in place of it.
I judge the functionality of search engines by how well they locate what *I* am looking for, not how effectively they divert me to whatever they think I should have been looking for, or have been paid to show me instead, or think would lead me to the 'right' opinions.
exactly!
This whole - internet search is better than ever if you know how to use it - smacks of the Jobs defense of his iPhone antenna .... "you're holding it wrong".
Internet search isn't corrupted - you're just using it incorrectly.
I often debate Section 230 with commenters on this site. And Google's behavior here is exactly why. The essence of Section 230 is that a website will not be punished for user generated content on its site. But Google *Is* punishing sites for user generated content. Its near monopoly in search is diverting clicks (and revenue) away from websites that allow user generated content they agree with.
I believe it is bad for google to do this- and it is definitely unfortunate that google does this while getting protection from section 230. But you cannot remove 230 without giving exactly this ability to the government- and while I *can* envision a world where Google is no longer a monopoly, I cannot envision a world (in the near term) where Government's monopoly is gone.
You can easily reform 230 to not extend to general clauses in the ToS that they use to censor people. Berenson is an example. Make clauses be explicit so users know the official rules.
Explain to everyone how wonderful the Internet was for those four years before 230 and how that applies today. While you're at it, explain how everyone was using ARPANET for decades without 230. I bow to your technical knowledge, so this should be informative.
Oh for fuck sake, is 230 so perfect that it can't dare be questioned or modified? Fuck you are just getting tiresome. At one time you actually sometimes made some decent points, but your actions on this thread is pure sycophantic.
Oh for fuck sake, is 230 so perfect that it can’t dare be questioned or modified?
I didn't say that, but thanks anyway.
At one time you actually sometimes made some decent points, but your actions on this thread is pure sycophantic.
It looks to me like the points that are making you angry exist only in your head.
What was the intention of your response then dummy? The fact that I gave you the dates going back to 1969 with ARPANET and IRC rooms, yet you still claim the internet was only made in 1992 is hilarious. Nothing has changed in the last 20 years. 230 hasn't been extended through suits to cover contractual agreements. Government hasn't been getting more involved as the internet grows in use.
You really are just an idiot. It is plain to see for everybody.
Ironically the argument you accuse me of is the very one you use to justify why there should be no QI. Hilarious how your views change based on your belief system. No principles.
Ironically the argument you accuse me of is the very one you use to justify why there should be no QI.
Except for the fact that our government existed for two centuries without it, while the Internet had been accessible to the average person for a mere four years pre-230 and this only became an issue when Trump's feelings were hurt.
Other than that you make a great point.
None of that is either relevant or true.
Then explain why I'm wrong as opposed to just declaring it to be so.
You, sir, are an idiot.
cite?
I love how you keep doubling down on your own ignorance even when people give you actual facts. It isn't that you can't learn, it is that you choose not to learn. All while defending the actions of the left.
What facts? You tell me that Section 230 coming around while the Internet was in it's infancy doesn't matter because college students and military people were using the ARPANET beforehand?
That's not refuting an argument with facts. It's grasping at straws.
And when your rejoinder is a personal attack, I know you have no argument. You never do. If you did you wouldn't need personal attacks to make your point.
Section 230 is a hack, a kluge, a bandaid. The real problem is the judicial system is too expensive and slow; no ordinary user can hold the media giants accountable for violating their own terms of service and marketing.
They promise in their ToS and their marketing that they are universal platforms for social contacts and for business; then they ban people and businesses for no discernible reason who have no practical way to appeal. A civil court case would take years and millions of dollars. But apparently the prospect of being held to their promises was apparently scary enough, so the cronies invented Section 230 to put a fig leaf on this nonsense, letting the media giants do what they wanted without being labeled publishers.
Section 230 had the best of intentions only if you believe their cries for pity.
What do you think would happen without it?
Serious question. No sarcasm.
I believe what would happen is every comments section and every forum would quickly disappear as people like Matt Welch found themselves being held accountable to comments from people like Nardz and Sevo.
Maybe you could actually try reading and understanding before you smash keyboards.
I clearly tied Section 230 and our slow/expensive judicial system together. You ignore half the equation and ask a stupid question.
If I had written something about boats float because of the hull and water, would you ask me what I thought would happen without water?
What a fucking maroon you are. Why don't you mute me again? I double dog dare you to mute me again. I double dog beg you to mute me again.
The only reason you want me to mute you is that I question your team groupthink and it makes you angry. So fuck you I won't mute you. If what I say makes you angry, then you've got two choices: mute me like a little bitch, or figure out why I'm drawing an emotional reaction from you.
You didn't question anything. You continually ignore any and all arguments outside of your first impressions on a topic then attack others with idiotic questions they've answered multiple times in conversations.
At least I don't dredge up personal details and irrelevant quotes before saying nasty things about their families and then trouncing arguments they never made.
I'll let that be your specialty.
So rather than answer the question you go on the attack.
Funny, but people who know what they are talking about don't do that.
Your question has been answered over and over. I know Jeff is your new idol, but this is called sea lioning.
What do you think would happen without it?
Without the communications decency act? Nothing. Things would go mostly as they do now. If you didn't have a communications decency act, you wouldn't need a section 230. But because we have a communications decency act, we need a section 230.
This is like acknowledging Mom is suffering Munchausen-by-proxy. "Yeah, she's making the kid sick, so we have to keep treating the kid with these meds to make him better. FREEDOM!"
No, get rid of mom, and you don't need the meds.
Elaborate. Please.
Section 230 has been called (By Reason writers no less) "The First Amendment of the Internet". The reason you NEED a "first amendment of the internet" is because the first amendment on the internet was hobbled by the communications decency act.
Maybe my understanding of the whole argument is wrong.
Here's what I've gathered. Section 230 means that hosts are not held liable for the speech of people posting shit on their websites. That means Reason can't sued for slander or libel because of what people put into the comments.
And nobody gave two shits for a few decades.
Then along came Trump, the crybaby in chief, and he got all pissy because he couldn't sue platforms for what people said about him.
Now all his followers think 230 sucks, which is ironic because without it they wouldn't be able to spew their hate all over the internet.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Section 230 is the 230th section within the Communications Decency act.
Basically, the ACLU saw the act for what it was (this was 1997, different times) and said, uhh, no. Luckily, the overbroad "indecency" provisions were struck, but it left the rest of the law intact.
So I apologize here for the wall of text, but it's important:
What you see here is a very messy law designed to stop some manner of pornography and indecent speech (somewhat neutered by the ACLU lawsuit) that was, in this libertarian's opinion, entirely unnecessary.
The internet and companies could have simply risen to prominence absent this law, and the courts could have figured out liability and responsibility for criminal speech using the normal court process, both criminal and civil. But section 230 created a liability shield for tech companies, and tech companies only which has been used as a shield for them to "moderate in good faith".
I believe that section 230 has perverted the legal landscape in favor of trillion dollar tech companies that could have been worked out through the normal (and yes, possibly messy) process of normal civil action through contract dispute etc.
I believe 230 prevented lawsuits and allowed the Internet to blossom as opposed to being stunted and constantly on guard for the next summons to court.
I could be wrong.
You are.
It's important to remember what you're cheering for when you cheer section 230. You're not cheering one slide in the powerpoint presentation, you're cheering for the powerpoint presentation. And it would do people well (especially free speech liberals and libertarians) to look at the whole presentation before they start cheering.
I'm not cheering anything. Jeez. Saying to hateful people like JesseAz "I think your hostility towards 230 based upon your crybaby-in-chief's whinings is shooting yourself in the foot" is different than saying "Yay 230 it's the best thing ever!"
Terms of Service is a canard- a red herring. There is nothing in the terms of service that would prevent a site from arbitrarily kicking you off their platform if they don't like you. And if somehow legal jurisprudence made something possible, the platforms would just adjust their TOS to allow them to arbitrarily kick you off their platform.
I get it. These companies used the principle of free, unfettered speech to build a giant network, and now that they have the audience, they are implementing heavy handed tactics. The people who joined thinking they would get a platform of free speech, should feel betrayed and they should abandon these sites in droves. (And you are seeing this with Twitter and Facebook, by the way.)
I also get it that the Government is a bad actor here. They are increasingly coopting these big tech entities to do their bidding, such that it is increasingly difficult to tell one from the other, and one's actions from another.
There is no quick solution to this, unfortunately. I see two potential solutions:
1) Pass legislation that makes it illegal for the federal and state governments to issue take-down or other censorship requests to any private entity, for anything except for a few explicitly allowed items (ex, Child Porn). None of this "General Health" or "Misinformation" bullshit. Straight up, if the post itself was the commission of a crime, then the government can ask that it be taken down. And the government should be obliged to prosecute the poster in these cases.
2) The second solution is to destroy the government controls that have cropped up since 2000 that make it harder and harder for disruptive companies to thrive in this space. That includes Frank-Dodd, Sarbanes-Oxley, the Patriot Act, and numerous European and Californian laws that favor big-business and make the market less competitive.
Again, Blockbuster once had exactly the same stranglehold in the 90s over film delivery. People were demanding that they be regulated by the government because once they had market dominance, they were heavily pushing films to edit out smutty content. It took 10 - 15 years, but eventually Blockbuster was destroyed by market forces.
No, their terms of service do matter. They are all one way; they do whatever they want, you suck it up. They promise in both ToS and marketing that their platforms are the modern way to connect with family and customers, universally, then cancel accounts and censor comments with no practical recourse.
In a just world, they could be taken to court for their censorship and cancellations without needing years and millions of dollars. If they are not ready to defend their actions within hours, then they took those actions without proper consideration. It should not take years and expensive lawyers.
"They promise in both ToS and marketing that their platforms are the modern way to connect with family and customers, universally, then cancel accounts and censor comments with no practical recourse."
This is incredibly weak tea. Many, many products are sold to you as the solution to all your problems. And when it turns out that their marketing was more hype than reality, your recourse may be a refund or just canceling your subscription. This is no different. Caveat emptor.
"In a just world, they could be taken to court for their censorship and cancellations without needing years and millions of dollars."
In a just world a company that does you wrong is liable for damages. Damages do not include "Well, I was counting on this business relationship to make money!" A world that considers "terminating a business relationship because I don't like the other guy" damages would not be just. In such a world, you'd be liable for "damages" to a newspaper for canceling a subscription due to their editorial policies, or canceling a contractor's job on your house because you don't like the way he looks at your wife.
If you are some random user of Twitter or Facebook and get banned, what are the damages? There are none. If, in the process of banning you, the company implied something that isn't true ("We banned Overt because he is a racist!") you might have a slander case- if there were real damages. But that is why sites like twitter are vague on their public statements of why you were banned.
This gets slightly more complicated in terms of businesses, such as revenue share. But again, any "just world" where google is compelled to keep a business customer, despite disliking their politics (or some other arbitrary reason) is a world where you are also prevented from severing relationships with sites whom you dislike.
Again, I don't agree with Google, and I don't like the shit that Big Tech has become. But forcing Google to heel will be far more damaging to us than to google.
The damages include the loss of profit in putting your thoughts into a platform that didn’t compensate you for your time and energy.
I disagree with your assertion from the outset, see Berenson. Meagan Murphy also attempted to go after Twitter for contract violations, but the SV judge she was forced to arbitrate under put contract controls under 230 protections.
Contracts are an essential part of business relationships. And yes the site ToS is a business relationship for many people. It is how the companies game money, it is how the users generate a user base.
Clauses of contracts that are too vague as to be unactionable or completely at the mercy of one party are deemed unconscionable clauses.
You are misreading Berenson's case. In that case, the judge dismissed specifically the "infringement of free speech" claims based on section 230. As he should.
But he has allowed the case to go forward on the contractual terms- namely that the terms of service, AND an executive's statements were a plausible contract from Twitter. It remains to be seen whether or not this actually will prevail, but section 230 is not overriding contract law here.
The statements should not have mattered but did due to the Murphy precedence. That is what I have issue with. SV is allowed to use contractual terms for their benefits other entities are not allowed to utilize. That is exactly the problem.
The government doesn’t need Section 230. The government has Google by the short and curlies for two reasons: (1) they send large amounts of money to Google via government contracts, and (2) they can threaten google with lawsuits based on anti-trust, financial regulations, and taxes, costing Google billions and tying them in knots for years even if they don’t win.
"Nice company you have there. Would be a shame if we would have to open an anti-trust investigation. Now, let's talk about search results regarding Rachel Levine and Hunter Biden: don't you agree that we should restore some truth and decency to the Internet and prevent people from being abused like that?"
I completely agree. That was the second part of my argument- that the government is being coercive to these large companies. But if you suddenly say that companies are liable for user-generated content, then the government now gets to decide what is acceptable user-generated content. And they get to do that for ALL websites, not just the big companies they are coercing.
Again, the way to stop this practice is to let market forces work. Google should be punished for being political hacks. 1) This takes time, and the real bad shit is only 5 - 6 years old. 2) it is being hampered by government controls that restrict the creation of disruptive technologies.
Consider that the Patriot act was passed 20 years ago, and only in the last 5-7 years or so have we really started to see chat technologies that allow one to really keep your chats hidden from the government. It takes time for the market to work, and we need to avoid reflexive legislative solutions because those often make a worse solution than the original problem.
It is being hampered by the very design of the Internet, a network with a single, globally interoperable standard, widely subsidized by the US and other governments.
The likely market outcome without government interventions would have been many different networks with gateways and gatekeepers between them, making it impossible for companies like Google and Facebook to dominate all online activity.
I can also envision a government that doesn't have a Communication's Decency act.
But you cannot remove 230 without giving exactly this ability to the government-
LOLWUT? "We cannot repeal a law abrogating the 1A without giving the power to regulate speech back to the government."
I certainly agree Google won't vaporize instantaneously at the repeal of S230, but I think there's very much something to be said about the letter of the law, and its existence or repeal, and the social will, or the chilling/warming effect behind it. I think, eventually, it would return to a point where people recognized that quoting other people off Twitter was akin to retelling limericks you read off a men's room wall and you bought your shit off of Amazon because you needed that book rather than because it did or didn't have 20,000 Chinese bot endorsements behind it.
The idea that the web as we know it will completely cease to function is utterly bunk.
Google won’t vaporize instantaneously at the repeal of S230
Search would go back to being a federated, narrow-margin, quasi-utility like grocery stores, rather than an eyeballs aggregator. Remember the big-name printer *or the phone company* that delivered your last phone book? Yeah, neither do I.
"If you think your child has one, call a doctor."
I used a search engine to try to diagnose a fault code on my overly computerized dishwasher. So many hits saying I should call an "authorized" service center. No human would write that.
The premise is true. If you know how to do the search you can still find what you want. But if you search is just "show me thing" then you end up getting junk. You could use Duck Duck Go, but that still uses Google on the back end. You miss the individualized ads but you still get the ads.
"If you know how to do the search you can still find what you want."
That's what puzzles me about all these people complaining about how information is being held back and news stories are being squashed. They still manage to find the information and news stories, or they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. Leaves me scratching my head.
Perhaps you are too young to remember how Google used to work: you’d do a search and the relevant links would show up right at the top. As it turns out, users didn’t (and don’t) look much beyond the first handful of links. That’s because Google used to be built to return search results that people actually find useful, popular, and interesting.
These days, most of the links are either to ads or pages that function like ads, or (on controversial topics), only pages that meet with the approval of leftists and semi-fascists (by which I mean Biden and his administration). They aren’t even trying to hide that fact.
Yes, downranking, attaching warning signs, etc. is “squashing news”, even if the links still occur further down or if you can conjure them up with “search hacks”.
Yeah, I find the more relevant search results on the second page now. So what?
Well, I'm glad you admit that much. That's what people mean when they are saying that Google is "squashing news".
Putting the more relevant content on the second page has the effect of most people never seeing it; it's a way to manipulate what people believe.
You think everyone is stupid?
I simply know how real users behave in practice. Whether you call that "stupid" or not is your choice.
Now, for you not to know how real users behave while repeatedly arguing the point, that is indeed stupid.
This is like somebody complaining that they're being beaten up, and you comment that they can't be right about that, they're obviously still alive. You don't need to totally bar all access to information to do effective censorship. You just need to make accessing it hard enough that instead of dramatic things snowballing, they die out.
It's like a nuclear reaction, really: If each time a U235 atom fissions, the resulting neutrons cause 1.1 more atoms to fission, you get a huge explosion. If it's only 0.9 more atoms fissioning, it barely gets warm.
Effective censorship just needs to divert enough interest to quench the reaction, it doesn't have to be remotely 100% effective to WORK.
This is like somebody complaining that they’re being beaten up, and you comment that they can’t be right about that, they’re obviously still alive.
No. It's like somebody complaining that they're being beaten up when nobody is touching them.
No. It’s like somebody complaining that they’re being beaten up when nobody is touching them.
In the groin.
Another example where a more intelligent commenter has an encounter with sarcs IQ barrier. Sarc didn’t get the first thing about Bretts point. Because sarc can’t think in shades of grey, more and less of something. His low IQ restrains him to strictly binary thinking.
The funny thing is, it's not like Brett's referring to some unheard of, esoteric, nuanced abstraction. "Barely gets warm" couldn't be more obviously pointing to "the chilling effect" and the ability of things like COINTELPRO to generate such an effect isn't really in doubt by anyone.
Stupid AND weird.
Nice.
Google search has become manipulated, politically pressured and biased, regulated, and censored. It has also become flooded with blatantly commercial links that are mostly useless. That's not a problem with "not knowing how to use it", it's a problem with Google search.
Financially, Google isn't dying: getting into bed with semi-fascists like the Democrats usually pays off well, at least in the short term. But as far as users are concerned, you have better options.
Google search, for anything remotely controversial is highly manipulated. I've done side-by-side tests on a number of controversial topics, individuals or institutions-- which are nigh predictable depending on what that topic/inst./individual is.
An alternate search engine (such as duckduckgo) often gives you what you're looking for as its first result.
Google will give you a ream of mainstream news articles-- usually from sources that Google has contracted with to be 'fact checkers' or 'authoritative sources' debunking, decrying or 'fact checking' said topic, person or institution.
And I do my searches all in incognito windows with no saved cookies or being "signed in" to any google services. For anything that's not controversial, I still find google to be the better search engine, but that's changing slowly as well (for me).
Use the following:
Site:(type in your website you want to search) (space) (keywords you want to search on that website)
So it looks like this:
Site:Reddit.com libertarian stuff
Works on DDG and google. Idk about other search engines.
Interesting. I don't find that Google has changed that much. I DO get a half-page of (presumably) paid ads, which I scroll past most of the time. On the other hand, I generally use Firefox. When I use "Brand X," provided by Microsoft, I get a whole lot more ads, especially when I reach the site I am after.
It's still a million times faster to get what you want than the local library.
First thought, 'ad blockers'.
Second thought, the library still has all those old books that contain the truth instead of the current political narrative.
Third thought, the newspapers at the local library are not paywalled, and their chairs are comfortable.
Full disclosure; I live in a red state.
I live in a "reddish" area of a blue state.
You don’t say?
"Second thought, the library still has all those old books that contain the truth instead of the current political narrative."
True too often. Holding a BA and Master's Degree in English, (with minors in psychology and sociology), I am very familiar with libraries. Especially since my degree was granted a bit before Al Gore invented the internet. At its height, my personal library exceeded one thousand books.
Side note: I did not obtain a degree in English to become a "scholar," but because I have always loved both reading and writing. And I love writing about stuff I read. I did quite well as a technical writer, and did okay in the business world, as well.
What makes you think so? Librarians are overwhelmingly leftist, and they weed out book they don't approve of.
Only at Reason would an article about a search engine so bad it doesn't give relevant results be headlined as "better than ever"
Requiring "reddit hacks"
Hey Mike...
I'm glad you found what you were looking for regarding your daughter's ear infection.
BETTER THAN EVER!
Google often causes controversy regarding censorship and monopolies. But there is no denying that this company has developed many open source services that can make your website or application more attractive and workable. This is a good help for non-standard website development. I watched a meeting between a client and a web developer once and was surprised how many additional features can be included in the code without a serious load. The most important thing is to understand what goal you want to get in the end)