Neil Carpenter Oct 3, 2023

CORRECTION: Wired have deleted this story because they got it greviously wrong. Corrections rarely have the impact of the original story but this one is categorically wrong.

"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."

I suppose it's predictable but I feel like everything I've used on the Internet has just publicly turned to dirt in the last 18 months.

https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/

A Note From WIRED Leadership

WIRED
Show threaddynamicOct 8, 2023

@neilcar

"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."

That's it? That's all they're going to tell us about what was wrong with the piece?

Is there somewhere we can find out more?

Show threadNeil Carpenter 

@dynamic In short, the writer completely misinterpreted the source material.

https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061

Adam Kovacevich (@adamkovac) on X

I asked Google PR if they could share the trial exhibit that @megangrA's Wired piece referred to (which this tweet responds to ⬇️). Here's what they shared:

X (formerly Twitter)
Oct 8, 2023 at 2:12pmWeb
Show threadvarx/socialOct 8, 2023
@neilcar @dynamic Wow. So the actual source material is about advertisement keyword matching. That's a pretty horribly bungled story.