"I have spent decades looking for examples of Google putting its enormous thumb on the scale to censor or amplify certain results, and it hadn’t even occurred to me that Google just flat out deletes queries and replaces them with ones that monetize better.”
Absolutely bonkers. The Google antitrust trial discovered that Google is actually *changing user queries* in order to generate results that give more sponsored ads
https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/
As more people become aware of Google's antics, the company will be hedging into the region of "outliving its usefulness". It can't come soon enough.
That won't happen with DuckDuckGo.com.
f*ing knew it. I use a selection of engines, some route though bigG, but give different responses...
@peterbutler Hm. This is certainly interesting.
Honestly though, I'm somewhat less outraged about this than the author of the article apparently expects me to be, and more just disappointed. I mean, Google (or any search service) provides an algorithm that takes in search terms and other info and produces search results, and what I care about as a user is how well those results get me the information or website I'm looking for. How the algorithm works is kind of irrelevant to me (at least, I don't care how the purely computational part of the algorithm works, although I might care about non-computational parts like if it's sending all my search activity to the NSA). If part of the algorithm internally happens to involve replacing one search query with another, that doesn't matter. (1/2)
@peterbutler So from the user's perspective, what matters here is that Google has implemented an algorithm that increases their ad revenue at the expense of search result quality. Certainly a loss for consumers, but it'd be far from the first time a company offers a product that sacrifices quality to allow them to make more money, even coming from a company that has a monopoly. In most other contexts we seem to just accept that as something that happens in capitalism. I see this as largely the same situation.
Not saying consumers shouldn't have negative feelings about this, it's just that what Google is doing is not out of line with what a lot of other companies do. Or at least it seems so based on the article. (2/2)
@peterbutler realising Google was doing this a few years ago was the big mover for me to use something else. I just didn't get relevant results from it as a search engine anymore.
For people looking for an alternative, Start Page has revolutionised my ability to actually find what I'm looking for. There are ads, but they are clearly labelled and once you scroll past them you see the kind of sites you haven't seen in years, with exactly what you want.
From the article:
>> Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution.
@peterbutler hmm,
Editor’s Note 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.
@grahamperrin Yes, I boosted this post when they made the decision:
https://writing.exchange/@ernie/111194443319593478
You can still read the original article via wayback machine:
It would be great if Wired provided a little more explanation than “WHOOPS!” 🙄
Peter Butler
Yaoi Box Balloon
JohnW
Robotistry
Grassroots Joe
Jennifer
Ben 🏳️🌈
rexi
David Zaslavsky
Pete
Dr Ro Smith
enchantedsleeper 🌈⭐
Mike Switzer
Tomasz Ondrusz
rsp
⌛️🧮 Bruce Carnwell (🐣 & 🌴)
Beej 💾
Graham Perrin
zendao42