Google: A Critic Looks in the Rear View Mirror and Risks a Collision with a Smart Service
May 21, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Courtney Radsch, a director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty, is not Googley. Her opinion about the Google makes this clear in “Google Broke the Law. It’s Time to Break Up the Company.”
. To which facet of the lovable Googzilla direct her attention. Picking one is difficult. Several of her points were interesting and in line with the intellectual stance of the Guardian, which ran her essay on April 24, 2025. Please, read the original write up and do contribute some money to the Guardian newspaper. Their strident pleas are moving, and I find their escalating way to say “donate” informative.
The first statement I circled was:
These global actions [the different legal hassles Googzilla faces with attendant fines and smarmy explanations] reflect a growing consensus: Google’s power is infrastructural and self-reinforcing. It controls the tools that decide what we know, what we see and who profits. The implications are especially acute for journalism, which has been hollowed out by Google’s ad market manipulation and search favoritism. In an era of generative AI, where foundation models are trained on the open web and commodify news content without compensation, this market power becomes even more perfidious.
The point abut infrastructure and self-reinforcing is accurate. I would point out that Google has been building out its infrastructure and the software “hooks” to make its services “self reinforcing.” The behavior is not new. What’s new is that it seems to be a surprise to some people. Where were the “real” journalists when the Google implemented its Yahoo-influenced advertising system? Where were the “real” journalists when Dr. Jeff Dean and other Googlers were talking and writing about the infrastructure “innovations” at the Google?
The second one was:
… global coordination should be built into enforcement.
I want to mention that “global coordination” is difficult at the present time. Perhaps if the “coordination” began 20 years ago, the process might be easier. Perhaps the author of the essay would like to speak with some people at Europol about the time and procedures required to coordinate to take down a criminal online operation. Tackling an outfit which is used by quite a few people for free is a more difficult, expensive, and resource intensive task. There are some tensions in the world, and the Google is going to have to pay some fines and possibly dump some of its assets to reduce the legal pressure being applied to the company. But Google has big bucks, and money has some value in certain circles. Coordination is possible in enforcement, but it is not exactly the magical spooky action at a distance some may think it is.
The third statement I drew a couple of lines under was:
The courts have shown that Google broke the law. Now, governments must show that the law still has teeth. That means structural remedies, not settlements. Transformation, not tinkering.
News flash. Google is as I type this sentence transforming. If you think the squishy world of search and the two way doors of online advertising were interesting business processes, I suggest one look closely at the artificial intelligence push at the Google. First, it is baked into to Google’s services. I am not sure users know how much Googliness its AI services have. That’s the same problem will looking at Google superficially as people did when the Backdoor was kicked open and the Google emerged. Also, the AI push has the same infrastructure game plan. Exactly who is going to prevent Google from developing its own chips and its next-generation computing infrastructure? Is this action going to come from regulators and lawyers? I don’t think so. These two groups are not closely associated with gradient descents, matrix mathematics, and semi-conductor engineering in my experience. Some individuals in these groups are, but many are users of Google AI, not engineers developing Google AI. I do like the T shirt slogan, “Transformation, not tinkering.”
In summary, I liked the editorial. I have one problem. Google has been being Googley for more than 20 years and now legal action is being taken for yesterday’s businesses at the company. The new Googzilla moves are not even on the essay writer’s, the Guardian’s, or the regulators’ radar.
Net net: Googzilla is rocking to tomorrow, not transformation. You don’t alter the DNA of Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2025
An Agreeable Google: Will It Write Checks with a Sad, Wry Systemic Smile?
May 14, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
Did you see the news about Google’s probable check writing?
“Google Settles Black Employees’ Racial Bias Lawsuit for $50 Million” reports:
According to the complaint, Black employees comprised only 4.4% of Google’s workforce and 3% of its leadership in 2021. The plaintiff April Curley, hired to expand outreach to historically Black colleges, said Google denied her promotions, stereotyped her as an “angry” Black woman, and fired her after six years as she prepared a report on its alleged racial bias. Managers also allegedly denigrated Black employees by declaring they were not “Googley” enough or lacked “Googleyness,” which the plaintiffs called racial dog whistles.
The little news story includes the words “racially biased corporate culture” and “systemic racial bias.” Is this the beloved “do no evil” company with the cheerful kindergarten colored logo? Frankly, this dinobaby is shocked. This must be an anomaly in the management approach of a trusted institution based on advertising.
Well, there is this story from Bloomberg, the terminal folks: “Google to Pay Texas $1.4 Billion to End Privacy Cases.” As I understand it,
Google will pay the state of Texas $1.375 billion to resolve two privacy lawsuits claiming the tech giant tracks Texans’ personal location and maintains their facial recognition data, both without their consent. Google announced the settlement Friday, ending yearslong battles with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) over the state’s strict laws on user data.
Remarkable.
The Dallas Morning News reports that Google’s position remains firm, resolute, and Googley:
The settlement doesn’t require any new changes to Google’s products, and the company did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. “This settles a raft of old claims, many of which have already been resolved elsewhere, concerning product policies we have long since changed,” said José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson. “We are pleased to put them behind us, and we will continue to build robust privacy controls into our services.”
Absolutely.
Imagine a company with those kindergarten colors in its logos finding itself snared in what seem to me grade school issues. Google must be misunderstood like one of those precocious children who solve math problems without showing their work. It’s just system perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2025
Big Numbers and Bad Output: Is This the Google AI Story
May 13, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
Alphabet Google reported financials that made stakeholders happy. Big numbers were thrown about. I did not know that 1.5 billion people used Google’s AI Overviews. Well, “use” might be misleading. I think the word might be “see” or “were shown” AI Overviews. The key point is that Google is making money despite its legal hassles and its ongoing battle with infrastructure costs.
I was, therefore, very surprised to read “Google’s AI Overviews Explain Made-Up Idioms With Confident Nonsense.” If the information in the write up is accurate, the factoid suggests that a lot of people may be getting bogus information. If true, what does this suggest about Alphabet Google?
The Cnet article says:
…the author and screenwriter Meaghan Wilson Anastasios shared what happened when she searched “peanut butter platform heels.” Google returned a result referencing a (not real) scientific experiment in which peanut butter was used to demonstrate the creation of diamonds under high pressure.
Those Nobel prize winners, brilliant Googlers, and long-time wizards like Jeff Dean seem to struggle with simple things. Remember the glue cheese on pizza suggestion before Google’s AI improved.
The article adds by quoting a non-Google wizard:
“They [large language models] are designed to generate fluent, plausible-sounding responses, even when the input is completely nonsensical,” said Yafang Li, assistant professor at the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. “They are not trained to verify the truth. They are trained to complete the sentence.”
Turning in lousy essay and showing up should be enough for a C grade. Is that enough for smart software with 1.5 billion users every three or four weeks?
The article reminds its readers”
This phenomenon is an entertaining example of LLMs’ tendency to make stuff up — what the AI world calls “hallucinating.” When a gen AI model hallucinates, it produces information that sounds like it could be plausible or accurate but isn’t rooted in reality.
The outputs can be amusing for a person able to identify goofiness. But a grade school kid? Cnet wants users to craft better prompts.
I want to be 17 years old again and be a movie star. The reality is that I am 80 and look like a very old toad.
AI has to make money for Google. Other services are looking more appealing without the weight of legal judgments and hassles in numerous jurisdictions. But Google has already won the AI race. Its DeepMind unit is curing disease and crushing computational problems. I know these facts because Google’s PR and marketing machine is running at or near its red line.
But the 1.5 billion users potentially receiving made up, wrong, or hallucinatory information seems less than amusing to me.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2025
Google, Its AI Search, and Web Site Traffic
May 12, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
I read “Google’s AI Search Switch Leaves Indie Websites Unmoored.” I think this is a Gen Y way of saying, “No traffic for you, bozos.” Of course, as a dinobaby, I am probably wrong.
Let’s look at the write up. It says:
many publishers said they either need to shut down or revamp their distribution strategy. Experts this effort could ultimately reduce the quality of information Google can access for its search results and AI answers.
Okay, but this is just one way to look at Google’s delicious decision.
May I share some of my personal thoughts about what this traffic downshift means for those blue-chip consultant Googlers in charge:
First, in the good old days before the decline began in 2006, Google indexed bluebirds (sites that had to be checked for new content or “deltas” on an accelerated heart beat. Examples were whitehouse.gov (no, not the whitehouse.com porn site). Then there were sparrows. These plentiful Web sites could be checked on a relaxed schedule. I mean how often do you visit the US government’s National Railway Retirement Web site if it still is maintained and online? Yep, the correct answer is, “Never.” There there were canaries. These were sites which might signal a surge in popularity. They were checked on a heart beat that ensured the Google wouldn’t miss a trend and fail to sell advertising to those lucky ad buyers.
So, bluebirds, canaries, and sparrows.
This shift means that Google can reduce costs by focusing on bluebirds and canaries. The sparrows — the site operated by someone’s grandmother to sell home made quilts — won’t get traffic unless the site operator buys advertising. It’s pay to play. If a site is not in the Google index, it just may not exist. Sure there are alternative Web search systems, but none, as far as I know, are close to the scope of the “old” Google in 2006.
Second, by dropping sparrows or pinging them once in a blue moon will reduce the costs of crawling, indexing, and doing the behind-the-scenes work that consumes Google cash at an astonishing rate. Therefore, the myth of indexing the “Web” is going to persist, but the content of the index is not going to be “fresh.” This is the concept that some sites like whitehouse.gov have important information that must be in search results. Non-priority sites just disappear or fade. Eventually the users won’t know something is missing, which is assisted by the decline in education for some Google users. The top one percent knows bad or missing information. The other 99 percent? Well, good luck.
Third, the change means that publishers will have some options. [a] They can block Google’s spider and chase the options. How’s Yandex.ru sound? [b] They can buy advertising and move forward. I suggest these publishers ask a Google advertising representative what the minimum spend is to get traffic. [c] Publishers can join together and try to come up with a joint effort to resist the increasingly aggressive business actions of Google. Do you have a Google button on your remote? Well, you will. [d] Be innovative. Yeah, no comment.
Net net: This item about the impact of AI Overviews is important. Just consider what Google gains and the pickle publishers and other Web sites now find themselves enjoying.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2025
Google: Making Users Cross Their Eyes in Confusion
May 9, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
I read “Don’t Make It Like Google.” The article points out that Google’s “control” extends globally. The company’s approach to software and design are ubiquitous. People just make software like Google because it seems “right.”
The author of the essay says:
Developers frequently aim to make things “like Google” because it feels familiar and, seemingly, the right way to do things. In the past, this was an implicit influence, but now it’s direct: Google became the platform for web applications (Chrome) and mobile applications (Android). It also created a framework for human-machine interaction: Material Design. Now, “doing it like Google” isn’t just desirable; it’s necessary.
Regulators in the European Union have not figured out how to respond to this type of alleged “monopoly.”
The author points out:
Most tech products now look indistinguishable, just a blobby primordial mess of colors.
Why? The author provides an answer:
Google’s actual UI & UX design is terrible. Whether mass-market or enterprise, web or mobile, its interfaces are chaotic and confusing. Every time I use Google Drive or the G Suite admin console, I feel lost. Neither experience nor intuition helps—I feel like an old man seeing a computer for the first time.
I quite like the reference to the author’s feeling like an “old man seeing a computer for the first time.” As a dinobaby, I find Google’s approach to making functions available — note, I am going to use a dinobaby term — stupid. Simple functions to me are sorting emails by sender and a keyword. I have not figured out how to do this in Gmail. I have given up on Google Maps. I have zero clue how to access the “old” street view with a basic map on a mobile device. Hey, am I the only person in an unfamiliar town trying to locate a San Jose-type office building in a tan office park? I assume I am.
The author points out:
Instead of prioritizing objectively good user experiences, the more profitable choice is often to mimic Google’s design. Not because developers are bad or lazy. Not because users enjoy clunky interfaces. But because it “makes sense” from the perspective of development costs and marketing. It’s tricky to praise Apple while criticizing Google because where Google has clumsy interfaces, Apple has bugs and arbitrary restrictions. But if we focus purely on interface design, Apple demonstrates how influence over users and developers can foster generations of well-designed products. On average, an app in Apple’s ecosystem is more polished and user-friendly than one in Google’s.
I am not sure that Apple is that much better than Google, but for me, the essay makes clear that giant US technology companies shape the user’s reality. The way information is presented and what expert users learn may not be appropriate for most people. I understand that these companies have to have a design motif or template. I understand that big companies have “experts” who determine what users do and want.
The author of the essay says:
We’ve become accustomed to the unintuitive interfaces of washing machines and microwaves. A new washing machine may be quieter, more efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing, yet its dials and icons still feel alien; or your washing machine now requires an app. Manufacturers have no incentive to improve this aspect—they just do it “like the Google of their industry.” And the “Google” of any industry inevitably gets worse over time.
I disagree. I think that making interfaces impossible is a great thing. Now here’s my reasoning: Who wants to expend energy figuring out a “better way.” The name of the game is to get eyeballs. Looking like Google or any of the big technology companies means that one just rolls over and takes what these firms offer as a default. Mind control and behavior conditioning is much easier and ultimately more profitable than approaching a problem from the user’s point of view. Why not define what a user gets, make it difficult or impossible to achieve a particular outcome, and force the individual to take what is presented as the one true way.
That makes business sense.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2025
Waymo Self Driving Cars: Way Safer, Waymo Says
May 9, 2025
This dinobaby believes everything he reads online. I know that statistically valid studies conducted by companies about their own products are the gold standard in data collection and analysis. If you doubt this fact of business life in 2025, you are not in the mainstream.
I read “Waymo Says Its Robotaxis Are Up to 25x Safer for Pedestrians and Cyclists.” I was thrilled. Imagine. I could stand in front of a Waymo robotaxi holding my new grandchild and know that the vehicle would not strike us. I wonder if my son and his wife would allow me to demonstrate my faith in the Google.
The write up explains that a Waymo study proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Waymo robotaxis are way, way, way safer than any other robotaxi. Here’s a sampling of the proof:
92 percent fewer crashes with injuries to pedestrians
82 percent fewer crashes with injuries to kids and adults on bicycles
82 percent fewer crashes with senior citizens on scooters and adults on motorcycles.
Google has made available a big, fat research paper which provides more knock out data about the safety of the firm’s smart robot driven vehicles. If you want to dig into the document with inputs from six really smart people, click this link.
The study is a first, and it is, in my opinion, a quantumly supreme example of research. I do not believe that Google’s smart software was used to create any synthetic data. I know that if a Waymo vehicle and another firm’s robot-driven car speed at an 80 year old like myself 100 times each, the Waymo vehicles will only crash into me 18 times. I have no idea how many times I would be killed or injured if another firm’s smart vehicle smashed into me. Those are good odds, right?
The paper has a number of compelling presentations of data. Here’s an example:
This particular chart uses the categories of striking and struck, but only a trivial amount of these kinetic interactions raise eyebrows. No big deal. That’s why the actual report consumed only 58 pages of text and hard facts. Obvious superiority.
Would you stand in front of a Waymo driving at you as the sun sets?
I am a dinobaby, and I don’t think an automobile would do too much damage if it did hit me. Would my son’s wife allow me to hold my grandchild in my arms as I demonstrated my absolute confidence in the Alphabet Google YouTube Waymo technology? Answer: Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2025
Apple and Google Relationship: Starting to Fray?
May 8, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
I spotted a reference to an Apple manager going out on a limb of the old, Granny Smith tree. At the end of the limb, the Apple guru allegedly suggested that the Google search ain’t what it used to be. Whether true or not, Apple pays the Google lots of money to be the really but formerly wonderful Web search system for the iPhone and Safari “experience.”
That assertion of decline touched a nerve at the Google. I noted this statement in the Google blog. I am not sure which one because Google has many pages of smarmy talk. I am a dinobaby and easily confused. Here’s that what Google document with the SEO friendly title “Here’s Our Statement on This Morning’s Press Reports about Search Traffic” says:
We continue to see overall query growth in Search. That includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple’s devices and platforms. More generally, as we enhance Search with new features, people are seeing that Google Search is more useful for more of their queries — and they’re accessing it for new things and in new ways, whether from browsers or the Google app, using their voice or Google Lens. We’re excited to continue this innovation and look forward to sharing more at Google I/O.
Several observations:
- I love the royal “we”. I think that the Googlers who are nervous about search include the cast of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act. Search means ads. Ads mean money. Money means Wall Street. Therefore, a decline in search makes the Wall Street types jumpy, twitchy, and grumpy. Do not suggest traffic declines when controlling the costs of the search plumbing are becoming quite interesting for the Googley bean counters.
- Apple device users are searching Google a lot. I believe it. Monopolies like to have captives who don’t know that there are now alternatives to the somewhat uninspiring version of Jon Kleinberg’s CLEVER inventions spiced with some Fancy Dan weighting. These “weights” are really useful for boosting I believe.
- The leap to user satisfaction with Google search is unsupported by audited data. Those happy faces don’t convey why millions of people are using ChatGPT or why people complain that Google search results are mostly advertising. Oh, well, when one is a monopoly controlling what’s presented to users within the content of big spending advertisers, reality is what the company chooses to present.
- The Google is excited about its convention. Will it be similar to the old network marketing conventions or more like the cheerleading at Telegram’s Gateway Conference? It doesn’t matter. Google is excited.
Net net: The alleged Apple remark goosed the Google to make “our statement.” Outstanding defensive tone and posture. Will the pair seek counseling?
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2025
Google Versus OpenAI: Whose Fish Is Bigger?
May 6, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Bing Crosby quipped on one of his long-ago radio shows, “We are talking about fish here” when asked about being pulled to shore by a salmon he caught. I think about the Bingster when I come across “user” numbers for different smart software systems. “Google Reveals Sky High Gemini Usage Numbers in Antitrust Case” provides some perjury proof data that it is definitely number two in smart software.
According to the write up:
The [Google] slide listed Gemini’s 350 million monthly users, along with daily traffic of 35 million users.
Okay, we have some numbers.
The write up provides a comparative set of data; to wit:
OpenAI has also seen traffic increase, putting ChatGPT around 600 million monthly active users, according to Google’s analysis. Early this year, reports pegged ChatGPT usage at around 400 million users per month.
Where’s Microsoft in this count? Yeah, who knows? MSFT just pounds home that it is winning in the enterprise. Okay, I understand.
What’s interesting about these data or lack of it has several facets:
- For Google, the “we’re number two” angle makes clear that its monopoly in online advertising has not transferred to becoming automatically number one in AI
- The data from Google are difficult to verify, but everyone trusts the Google
- The data from OpenAI are difficult to verify, but everyone trusts Sam AI-Man.
Where are we in the AI game?
At the mercy of unverifiable numbers and marketing type assertions.
What about Deepseek which may be banned by some of the folks in Washington, DC? What about everyone’s favorite litigant Meta / Facebook?
Net net: AI is everywhere so what’s the big deal? Let’s get used to marketing because those wonderful large language models still have a bit of problem with hallucinations, not to mention security issues and copyright hassles. I won’t mention cost because the data make clear that the billions pumped into smart software have not generated a return yet. Someday perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2025
One Argument for Google to Retain Chrome
May 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby who gets revved up with buzzwords and baloney.
“Don’t Make Google Sell Chrome” argues that Google’s browser is important for the Web. Two thoughts: [a] The browser is definitely good for Google. It is a data hoovering wonder. And [b] the idea that Google is keeping the Web afloat means that any injury to Google imperils the World Wide Web. The author argues:
We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web’s corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web’s capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in — and it did! But the vitality of that free and open application platform depends on constant development. If the web stagnates, other platforms will gain. But with Team Chrome pushing the web forward in a million ways — be it import maps, nested CSS, web push, etc. — is therefore essential.
This series of assertions underscores argument [b] above.
The essay concludes with this call to action for legal eagles:
Google should not get away with rigging the online ad market, but forcing it to sell Chrome will do great damage to the web.
But what about argument [a] “The browser is definitely good for Google.” Let me offer several observations:
First, I am not sure “browser” captures what Google has been laboring for years to achieve. Chrome was supposed to mash Microsoft’s Windows operating system into the dirt. If Chrome becomes the de facto “web”, the Google may pull off a monopoly displacement. Windows moves to the margin, and Chrome dominates the center.
Second, someone told me there was science fiction story about a series of vending machines. The beverage machine made you want a snack. The snack from the snack machine made you want something salty. The salty product vending machine made you want a beverage. The customer is addicted. That’s what the trifecta of Web search online advertising, and Chrome does — actually, possibly has done — to users. I am using the term “user” in the sense that it is tough to break the cycle. Think drug or some other addiction and how the process works.
Third, the argument that only big technology companies can operate their products. Okay, maybe. My approach to this is, “Hey, let’s break up these interlocked cycling systems and see what happens. I can hear, “Wow, you dinobabies are crazy.” Maybe so. Maybe so.
Net net: These pro-Google arguments strike me as content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
Deep Fake Recognition: Google Has a Finger In
May 5, 2025
Sorry, no AI used to create this item.
I spotted this Newsweek story: “‘AI Imposter’ Candidate Discovered During Job Interview, Recruiter Warns.” The main idea is that a humanoid struggled to identify a deep fake. The deep fake was applying for a job.
The write up says:
Several weeks ago, Bettina Liporazzi, the recruiting lead at letsmake.com was contacted by a seemingly ordinary candidate who was looking for a job. Their initial message was clearly AI-generated, but Liporazzi told Newsweek that this “didn’t immediately raise any flags” because that’s increasingly commonplace.
Here’s the interesting point:
Each time the candidate joined the call, Liporazzi got a warning from Google to say the person wasn’t signed in and “might not be who they claim to be.”
This interaction seems to have taken place online.
The Newsweek story includes this statement:
As generative-AI becomes increasingly powerful, the line between what’s real and fake is becoming harder to decipher. Ben Colman, co-founder and CEO of Reality Defender, a deepfake detection company, tells Newsweek that AI impersonation in recruiting is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
The recruiter figured out something was amiss. However, in the sequence Google injected its warning.
Several questions:
- Does Google monitor this recruiter’s online interactions and analyze them?
- How does Google determine which online interaction is one in which it should simply monitor and which to interfere?
- What does Google do with the information about [a] the recruiter, [b] the job on offer itself, and [c] the deep fake system’s operator?
I wonder if Newsweek missed the more important angle in this allegedly actual factual story; that is, Google surveillance? Perhaps Google was just monitoring email when it tells me that a message from a US law enforcement agency is not in my list of contacts. How helpful, Google?
Will Google’s “monitoring” protect others from Deep Fakes? Those helpful YouTube notices are part of this effort to protect it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
