Google: Privacy Is Number One?
September 19, 2023
Big tech companies like Google do not respect users’ privacy rights. Yes, these companies have privacy statements and other legal documents that state they respect individuals’ privacy but it is all smoke and mirrors. The Verge has the lowdown on a privacy lawsuit filed against Google and a judge’s recent decision: “$5 Billion Google Lawsuit Over ‘Incognito Mode’ Tracking Moves A Step Closer To Trial.”
Chasom Brown, Willian Byatt, Jeremy Davis, Christopher Castillo, and Monique Trujillo filed a class action lawsuit against Google for collecting user information while in “incognito mode.” Publicly known as Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google, the plaintiffs seek $5 billion in damages. Google requested a summary judgment, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of California denied it.
Judge Gonzalez noted that statements in the Chrome privacy nonie, Privacy Policy, Incognito Splash Screen, and Search & Browse Privately Help page explains how Incognito mode limits information and how people can control what information is shared. The judge wants the court to decide if these notices act as a binding agreement between Google and users that the former would not collect users’ data when they browsed privately.
Google disputes the claims and state that every time a new incognito tab is opened, Web sites might collect user information. There are other issues the plaintiffs and judge want to discuss:
“Another issue going against Google’s arguments that the judge mentioned is that the plaintiffs have evidence Google ‘stores users’ regular and private browsing data in the same logs; it uses those mixed logs to send users personalized ads; and, even if the individual data points gathered are anonymous by themselves, when aggregated, Google can use them to ‘uniquely identify a user with a high probability of success.’’
She also responded to a Google argument that the plaintiffs didn’t suffer economic injury, writing that ‘Plaintiffs have shown that there is a market for their browsing data and Google’s alleged surreptitious collection of the data inhibited plaintiffs’ ability to participate in that market…Finally, given the nature of Google’s data collection, the Court is satisfied that money damages alone are not an adequate remedy. Injunctive relief is necessary to address Google’s ongoing collection of users’ private browsing data.’”
Will Chasom Brown, et. Al v. Google go anywhere beyond the California court? Will the rest of the United States and other countries that have a large Google market, the European Union, do anything?
Whitney Grace, September 19, 2023
YouTube and Click Fraud: A Warning Light Flashing?
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a link to a 16 minute YouTube long form, old-fashioned video from Lon.TV titled YouTube Invalid Traffic. The person who does Lon.TV usually reviews gadgets, but this video identifies a demonetization procedure apparently used by the non-monopoly Google. (Of course, I believe Google’s assertion that almost everyone uses Google because it is just better.)
The creator reads an explanation of an administrative action and says, “What does this mean?” Would a non-monopoly provide a non explanation? Probably a non not. Thanks, MidJourney, the quality continues to slip. Great work.
Lon.TV explains that the channel received a notice of fraudulent clicks. The “fix”, which YouTube seems to implement unilaterally and without warning, decreases a YouTuber’s income. The normal Google “help” process results in words which do not explain the details of the Google-identified problem.
Click fraud has been a tricky issue for ad-supported Google for many years. About a decade ago, a conference organizer wanted me to do a talk about click fraud, a topic I did not address in my three Google monographs. The reports for a commercial company footing the bill for my research did get information about click fraud. My attorney at the time (may he rest in peace) advised me to omit that information from the monographs published by a now defunct publisher in the UK. I am no legal eagle, but I do listen to them, particularly when it costs me several hundred dollars an hour.
Click fraud is pretty simple. One can have a human click on a link.l If one is serious, one can enlist a bunch of humans using an ad in Craigslist.com. A more enterprising click fraud player would write a script and blast through a target’s ad budget, rack up lots of popularity points, or make a so-so video into the hottest sauce pan on the camp fire.
Lon.TV’s point is that most of his site’s traffic originates from Google searches. A person looking for a camera review runs a query on Google. The Google results point to a Lon.TV video. The person clicks on the Google generated link, and the video plays. The non-monopoly explains, as I understand it, that the fraudulent clicks are the fault of the YouTuber. So, the bad actor is the gadget guy at Lon.TV.
I think there is some useful information or signals in this video. I shall share my observations:
- Click fraud, based on my research a decade ago, was indeed a problem for the non-monopoly. In fact, the estimable company was trying to figure out how to identify fraudulent clicks and block them. The work was not a path to glory, so turnover often plagued those charged with stamping out click fraud. Plus, the problem was “hard.” Simple fixes like identifying lots of clicks in a short time were easily circumvented. More sophisticated ones like figuring out blocks of IP addresses responsible for lots of time spaced clicks were okay until the fraudsters figured out another approach. Thus, cat-and-mouse games began.
- The entire point of YouTube.com is to attract traffic. Therefore, it is important to recognize what is a valid new trend like videos of females wearing transparent clothing is recognized and clicks on dull stuff like streaming videos of a view of an erupting volcano are less magnetic. With more clicks, many algorithmic beavers jump in the river. More clicks means more ads pushed. The more ads pushed means more clicks on those ads and, hence, more money. It does not take much thought to figure out that a tension exists between lots of clicks Googlers and block those clicks Googlers. In short, progress is slow and money generation wins.
- TikTok has caused Google to undermine its long form videos to deal with the threat of the China-linked competitor. The result has been an erosion of clicks because one cannot inject as many ads into short videos as big boy videos. Oh, oh. Revenue gradient decline. Bad. Quick fix. Legitimize keeping more ad revenue? Would a non monopoly do that?
- The signals emitted by Lon.TV indicate that Google’s policy identified by the gadget guy is to blame the creator. Like many of Google’s psycho-cognitive methods used to shift blame, the hapless creator is punished for the alleged false clicks. The tactic works well because what’s the creator supposed to do? Explain the problem in a video which is not pushed?
Net net: Click fraud is a perfect cover to demonetized certain videos. What happens to the ad money? Does Google return it to the advertiser? Does Google keep it? Does Google credit the money back to the advertiser’s account and add a modest “handling fee”? I don’t know, and I am pretty sure the Lon.TV fellow does not either. Furthermore, I am not sure Google “knows” what its different units are doing about click fraud. What’s a non-monopoly supposed to do? I think the answer is, “Make money.” More of these methods are likely to surface in the future.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
We Are from a Big Outfit. We Are Here to Help You. No, Really.
September 7, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“Greetings, creators,” says the sincere (if smarmy voice of the Google things). “We are here to help you.”
Better listen up. The punishment may range from becoming hard to find (what’s new?) or loss of revenue.
The cheerful young and well paid professional, smiles at the creator and says, “Good morning, I am from a certain alleged monopoly. I am definitely here to help you.” Thanks, MidJourney. The gradient descent is allowing your coefficient of friction to be reduced.
I read “YouTube Advertising Formats.” I love the lack of a date on the write up. Metadata are often helpful. I like document version numbers too. As a dinobaby, I like the name of a person who allegedly wrote the article; for example, Mr. Nadella signs his blog posts about the future of the universe.
The write up makes one big point in my opinion: Creators lose control over ads shown before, during, and after their content is pushed to a user of YouTube and whatever other media the new, improved “smart” Google will offer its “users.”
Here’s how the Google makes sure a creator spots the important “fewer controls” message:
I love those little triangles and the white exclamation points. Very cool.
Why is this change taking place at this time? Here are my thoughts:
- Users of YouTube are not signing up for ad-free YouTube. The change makes it possible for Google to hose more “relevant” ads into the creators’ content.
- Users of YouTube are clicking the “skip” button far too frequently. What’s the fix? You cannot skip so much, pal.
- Google is indeed concerned about ad revenue flow. Despite the happy talk about Google’s revenue, the push to smart software has sparked an appetite for computation. The simple rule is: More compute means more costs.
Is there a fix? Sure, but those adjustments require cash to fund an administrative infrastructure and time to figure out how to leverage options like TikTok and the Zuckbook. Who has time and money? Perhaps a small percentage of creators?
Net net: In an unregulated environment and with powerless “creators,” the Google is here to help itself and maybe some others not so much.
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
Google: An Ad Crisis Looms from the Cancer of Short Videos
September 7, 2023
The weird orange newspaper ran a story which I found important. To read the article, you will need to pony up cash; I suggest you consider doing that. I want to highlight a couple of key points in the news story and offer a couple of observations.
An online advertising expert looks out his hospital window and asks, “I wonder if the cancer in my liver will be cured before the cancer is removed from my employer’s corporate body?” The answer may be, “Liver cancer can be has a five year survival rate between 13 to 43 percent (give or take a few percentage points).” Will the patient get back to Foosball and off-site meetings? Is that computer capable of displaying TikTok videos? Thanks, Mother MJ. No annoying red appeal this banners today.
The article “Shorts Risks Cannibalising Core YouTube Business, Say Senior Staff” contains an interesting (although one must take with a dollop of mustard and some Dead Sea salt):
Recent YouTube strategy meetings have discussed the risk that long-form videos, which produce more revenue for the company, are “dying out” as a format, according to these people.
I am suspicious of quotes from “these people.” Nevertheless, let’s assume that the concern at the Google is real like news from “these people.”
The idea is that Google has been asleep at the switch as TikTok (the China linked short video service) became a go-to destination for people seeking information. Yep, some young people search TikTok for information, not just tips on self-harm and body dysmorphia. Google’s reaction was slow and predictable: Me too me too me too. Thus, Google rolled out “Shorts,” a TikTok clone and began pushing it to its YouTube faithful.
The party was rolling along until “these people” sat down and looked at viewing time for longer videos and the ad revenue from shorter videos. Another red alert siren began spinning up.
The orange newspaper story asserted:
In October last year, YouTube reported its first-ever quarterly decline in ad revenue since the company started giving its performance separately in 2020. In the following two quarters, the platform reported further falls compared with the same periods the previous year.
With a decline in longer videos, the Google cannot insert as many ads. If people watch shorter videos, Google has reduced ad opportunities. Although Google would love to pump ads into 30 second videos, viewers (users) might decide to feed their habit elsewhere. And where one may ask? How about TikTok or the would be cage fighter’s Meta service?
Several observations:
- Any decline in ad revenue is a force multiplier at the Google. The costs of running the outfit are difficult to control. Google has not been the best outfit in the world in creating new, non ad revenue streams in the last 25 years. That original pay-to-play inspiration has had legs, but with age, knees and hips wear out. Googzilla is not as spry as it used to be and its bright idea department has not found sustainable new revenue able to make up for a decline in traditional Google ad revenue… yet.
- The cost of video is tough to weasel out of Google’s financial statements. The murky “cloud” makes it easy to shift some costs to the enabler of the magical artificial intelligence push at the company. In reality, video is a black hole of costs. Storage, bandwidth, legal compliance, creator hassles, and overhead translate to more ads. Long videos are one place to put ads every few minutes. But when the videos are short like those cutting shapes dance lessons, the “short” is a killer proposition.
- YouTube is a big deal. Depending on whose silly traffic estimates one believes, YouTube is as big a fish in terms of eyeballs as Google.com search. Google search is under fire from numerous directions. Prabhakar Raghavan has not mounted much of a defense to the criticisms directed at Google search’s genuine inability to deliver relevant search results. Now the YouTube ad money flow is drying up like streams near Moab.
Net net: YouTube has become a golden goose. But short videos are a cancer and who can make fois gras out of a cancerous liver?
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
Search: The Moonshot for Alphabet Google YouTube Etc. May Be Off by Miles
September 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google is now 25. Yep, a quarter century. If you want to read a revisionist history of the beloved firm, point your Chrome browser (yep, it is part of the alleged monopoly) at “Questions, Shrugs and What Comes Next: A Quarter Century of Change.” The cited article appears in the Google blog (does anyone remember Blogger or what about the Google blog search?). The idea is that Sundar Pichai logged into a Google workspace (yep, that’s the software system intended to deal Microsoft a mortal blow).
I just wanted to hire a normal clown. It was not possible. The clown search became a monster. Let’s have fun! Thanks, MidJourney, you old gradient descent entity.
What does Mr. Pichai write, allegedly without the assistance of other Googlers, advisors, and legal eagles?
One of this statements is:
Search is still at the core of our mission, and it’s still our biggest moonshot with so much more to do.
Okay, I want to stop there. I wanted to find a service in Louisville, Kentucky, that sends clowns to birthday parties. Pretty simple, right. I entered the query “Louisville Kentucky clowns birthday parties.” I expected to see a list of people or companies in the clown rental business. Wrong? I received this output from the “biggest moonshot” outfit:
The top hit was to The Bash, a service which lists clowns. That link pointed me to Bunny Bear Entertainment and Salem Sisters 502. No phone number, just a link to get a free quote. Okay, that looks good. Click on the link and what happens? A form appears and someone will contact me. Yeah, I wanted to talk to a person.
The second hit was to Phillips (presenting itself as kiddyskingdom.com) at a toll free number. Same deal. A referral service. No, I could not talk to a human in Louisville.
The third hit was to About Faces. Yep, another SEO-ized reseller of clown services. No phone number for me to call to talk to a real live clown.
Several observations:
- Google search (the moonshot) is not useful. It creates work; it does not provide what I wanted.
- Google’s business is selling ads which are funding Google Cloud ambitions to break out of the one-trick-pony pejorative aimed at the company by the Softie Steve Ballmer a long time ago.
- The blog post is a marketing pitch for Google’s smart software.
Net net: Vintage Google operating without regard to regulatory scrutiny, allegations that the company is a monopoly, or managing people in a way that is what I hoped the clown company would provide to me: Laughs.
A “healthy disregard for the impossible.” Sure. I trust Google. I believe the Google. But delivering on point search results. I don’t need a clown for that. I have one.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2023
Google: Another Modest Proposal to Solve an Existential Crisis. No Big Deal, Right?
September 1, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I am fascinated with corporate “do goodism.” Many people find themselves in an existential crisis anchored in zeros and ones. Is the essay submitted as original work the product of an industrious 15 year old? Or, is the essay the 10 second output of a smart software system like ChatGPT or You.com? Is that brilliant illustration the labor of a dedicated 22 year old laboring in a cockroach infested garage in in Corona, Queens? Or, was the art used in this essay output in about 60 seconds by my trusted graphic companion Mother MidJourney?
“I see the watermark. This is a fake!” exclaims the precocious lad. This clever middle school student has identified the super secret hidden clue that this priceless image is indeed a fabulous fake. How could a young person detect such a sophisticated and subtle watermark? The is, “Let’s overestimate our capabilities and underestimate those of young people who are skilled navigators of the digital world?”
Queens and what’s this “modest proposal” angle. Jonathan Swift beat this horse until it died in the late 17th century. I think the reference makes a bit of sense. Mr. Swift proposed simple solutions to big problems. “DeepMind Develops Watermark to Identify AI Images” explains:
Google’s DeepMind is trialling [sic] a digital watermark that would allow computers to spot images made by artificial intelligence (AI), as a means to fight disinformation. The tool, named SynthID, will embed changes to individual pixels in images, creating a watermark that can be identified by computers but remains invisible to the human eye. Nonetheless, DeepMind has warned that the tool is not “foolproof against extreme image manipulation.
Righto, it’s good enough. Plus, the affable crew at Alphabet Google YouTube are in an ideal position to monitor just about any tiny digital thing in the interwebs. Such a prized position as de facto ruler of the digital world makes it easy to flag and remove offending digital content with the itty bitty teenie weeny manipulated pixel thingy.
Let’s assume that everyone, including the young fake spotter in the Mother MJ image accompany this essay gets to become the de facto certifier of digital content. What are the downsides?
Gee, I give up. I cannot think of one thing that suggests Google’s becoming the chokepoint for what’s in bounds and what’s out of bounds. Everyone will be happy. Happy is good in our stressed out world.
And think of the upsides? A bug might derail some creative work? A system crash might nuke important records about a guilty party because pixels don’t lie? Well, maybe just a little bit. The Google intern given the thankless task of optimizing image analysis might stick in an unwanted instruction. So what? The issue will be resolved in a court, and these legal proceedings are super efficient and super reliable.
I find it interesting that the article does not see any problem with the Googley approach. Like the Oxford research which depended upon Facebook data, the truth is the truth. No problem. Gatekeepers and certification authority are exciting business concepts.
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2023
YouTube Content: Are There Dark Rabbit Holes in Which Evil Lurks? Come On Now!
September 1, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Google has become a cultural touchstone. The most recent evidence is a bit of moral outrage in Popular Science. Now the venerable magazine is PopSci.com, and the Google has irritated the technology explaining staff. Navigate to “YouTube’s Extremist Rabbit Holes Are Deep But Narrow.”
Google, your algorithm is creating rabbit holes. Yes, that is a technical term,” says the PopSci technology expert. Thanks for a C+ image MidJourney.
The write up asserts:
… exposure to extremist and antagonistic content was largely focused on a much smaller subset of already predisposed users. Still, the team argues the platform “continues to play a key role in facilitating exposure to content from alternative and extremist channels among dedicated audiences.” Not only that, but engagement with this content still results in advertising profits.
I think the link with popular science is the “algorithm.” But the write up seems to be more a see-Google-is-bad essay. Science? No. Popular? Maybe?
The essay concludes with this statement:
While continued work on YouTube’s recommendation system is vital and admirable, the study’s researchers echoed that, “even low levels of algorithmic amplification can have damaging consequences when extrapolated over YouTube’s vast user base and across time.” Approximately 247 million Americans regularly use the platform, according to recent reports. YouTube representatives did not respond to PopSci at the time of writing.
I find the use of the word “admirable” interesting. Also, I like the assertion that algorithms can do damage. I recall seeing a report that explained social media is good and another study pitching the idea that bad digital content does not have a big impact. Sure, I believe these studies, just not too much.
Google has a number of buns in the oven. The firm’s approach to YouTube appears to be “emulate Elon.” Content moderation will be something with a lower priority than keeping tabs on Googlers who don’t come to the office or do much Google work. My suggestion for Popular Science is to do a bit more science, and a little less quasi-MBA type writing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2023
Slackers, Rejoice: Google Has a Great Idea Just for You
August 31, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I want to keep this short because the idea of not doing work to do work offends me deeply. Just like the big thinkers who want people to relax, take time, smell the roses, and avoid those Type A tendencies annoy me. I like being a Type A. In fact, if I were not a Type A, I would not “be” to use some fancy Descartes logic.
Is anyone looking down the Information Superhighway to see what speeding AI vehicle is approaching? Of course not, everyone is on break or playing Foosball. Thanks, Mother MidJourney, you did not send me to the arbitration committee for my image request.
“Google Meet’s New AI Will Be Able to Go to Meetings for You” reports:
…you might never need to pay attention to another meeting again — or even show up at all.
Let’s think about this new Google service. If AI continues to advance at a reasonable pace, an AI which can attend a meeting for a person can at some point replace the person. Does that sound reasonable? What a GenZ thrill. Money for no work. The advice to take time for kicking back and living a stress free life is just fantastic.
In today’s business climate, I am not sure that delegating knowledge work to smart software is a good idea. I like to use the phrase “gradient descent.” My connotation of this jargon means a cushioned roller coaster to one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins. I much prefer intentional use of software. I still like most of the old-fashioned methods of learning and completing projects. I am happy to encounter a barrier like my search for the ultimate owners of the domain rrrrrrrrrrr.com or the methods for enabling online fraud practiced by some Internet service providers. (Sorry, I won’t name these fine outfits in this free blog post. If you are attending my keynote at the Massachusetts and New York Association of Crime Analysts’ conference in early October, say, “Hello.” In that setting, I will identify some of these outstanding companies and share some thoughts about how these folks trample laws and regulations. Sound like fun?
Google’s objective is to become the source for smart software. In that position, the company will have access to knobs and levers controlling information access, shaping, and distribution. The end goal is a quarterly financial report and the diminution of competition from annoying digital tsetse flies in my opinion.
Wouldn’t it be helpful if the “real news” looked down the Information Highway? No, of course not. For a Type A, the new “Duet” service does not “do it” for me.
Stephen E Arnold, August 31, 2023
Google: Trapped in Its Own Walled Garden with Lots of Science Club Alums
August 30, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I read “MapReduce, TensorFlow, Vertex: Google’s Bet to Avoid Repeating History in AI.” I found the idea that Google gets in its own way a retelling of how high school science club management produces interesting consequences.
A young technology wizard finds himself in a Hall of Mirrors at the carnival. He is not sure what is real or in which direction to go. The world of the House of Mirrors is disorienting. The young luminary wants to return to the walled garden where life is more comfortable. Thanks, MidJourney. Four tries and I get this tired illustration. Gradient descent time?
The write up asserts:
Google is in the middle of trying to avoid repeating history when releasing its industry-altering technology.
I disagree. The methods defining Google produce with remarkable consistency a lack of informed control. The idea is that organizations have a culture. That cultural evolves over time, but it remains anchored in its past. Thus, as the organization appears to move forward in time, that organization behaves in a predictable way; for example, Google has an approach to management which guarantees friction. Examples range from the staff protests to the lateral arabesque used to move Dr. Jeff Dean out of the way of the DeepMind contingent.
The write up takes a different view; for example:
Run by engineers, the [Google MapReduce] team essentially did not foresee the coming wave of open-source technology to power the modern Web and the companies that would come to commercialize it.
Google lacks the ability to perceive its opportunities. The company is fenced by its dependence on online advertising. Thus, innovations are tough for the Googlers to put into perspective. One reason is the high school science club ethos of the outfit; the other is that the outside world is as foreign to many Googlers as the world beyond the goldfish’s bowl filled with water. The view is distorted, surreal, and unfamiliar.
How can a company innovate and make a commercially viable product with this in its walled garden? It cannot. Advertising at Google is a me-too product for which Google prior to its IPO settled a dispute with Yahoo over the “inspiration” for pay-to-play search. The cost of this “inspiration” was about $1 billion.
In a quarter century, Google remains what one Microsoftie called “a one-trick pony.” Will the Google Cloud emerge as a true innovation? Nope. There are lots of clouds. Google is the Enterprise Rent-a-Car to the Hertz and Avis cloud rental firms. Google’s innovation track record is closer to a high school science club which has been able to win the state science club content year after year. Other innovators win the National Science Club Award (once called the Westinghouse Award). The context-free innovations are useful to others who have more agility and market instinct.
My view is that Google has become predictable, lurching from one technical paper to legal battle like a sine wave in a Physics 101 class; that is, a continuous wave with a smooth periodic function.
Don’t get me wrong. Google is an important company. What is often overlooked is the cultural wall that keeps the 100,000 smartest people in the world locked down in the garden. Innovation is constrained, and the excitement exists off the virtual campus. Why do so many Xooglers innovate and create interesting things once freed from the walled garden? Culture has strengths and weaknesses. Google’s muffing the bunny, as the article points out, is one defining characteristic of a company which longs for high school science club meetings and competitions with those like themselves.
Tony Bennett won’t be singing in the main cafeteria any longer, but the Googlers don’t care. He was an outsider, interesting but not in the science club. If the thought process doesn’t fit, you must quit.
Stephen E Arnold, August 30. 2023
Waking Up with Their Hair on Fire: What Is Beloved Google Doing to Us?
August 23, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Strident? Fearful? Doomed? Interesting words. These popped into my mind after I read two essays about the dearly beloved Google. I want to make clear that governments are powerless in the world of Google. Politicians taking action to impede Google will find themselves targets of their constituents ire. Technologies who grouse about the functions of the Google ecosystem will find themselves marginalized in numerous and interesting ways. Pundits will rail at the moon, lamenting that those reading their lamentations to the jazzed up version of Mozart’s final movement of his Requiem Mass in D minor, K. 62 the Lacrimosa. Bum bum. Bum.
“Real” news professions run down the Information Highway warning people about the Google. Helpful after 25 years. Thanks, MidJourney, I figured out how to get you to output original fear and panic.
Hand-wringers, it is too late. After 25 years of regulatory “attention,” Google controls quite a bit of the datasphere, including the subdivisions in which the moaners, groaners, and complainers dwell. Get over it may be a prudent policy. How dependent upon Google are professionals engaged in for fee research: A lot. How do certain Western governments get their information? Yep, the Google. How do advertisers communicate? That’s easy. The Google.
The first article to cause me to slap my knee is “Hundreds of AI news Sites Busily Spew Misinformation. Google and Meta’s Canadian News Ban May Make It Worse.” The write up contains this one-liner:
According to news and misinformation tracker NewsGuard, which has been monitoring the state of AI-driven fake news for the past several months, more than 400 “unreliable AI-generated news websites” have been identified so far — and analysts from the company say more are being discovered every day.
Huh? People turn to social media because “real” news is edutainment or out-of-step with what viewers and listeners want to know. Does the phrase “If it bleeds, it leads” ring a bell? What makes this Canadian invocation of Google interesting is that Canada has hastened its own information challenge. Getting Google or the Zuckbook to pay for something that is spiderable is not going to happen or at least in a way that makes the “real” news outfits happy. The problem has existed for two decades. Now a precipice? You have been falling for a long time and are now realizing that you will crash into an immovable object — Googzilla.
The second write up is a bit of verbal pyrotechnics which questions the Google’s alleged love fest with Frank Sinatra. Yep, old blue eyes himself. “Google and YouTube Are Trying to Have It Both Ways with AI and Copyright” — displayed against a truly lovely RGB color — points out that the end of copyright is here or at least coming down the Information Superhighway. Consider this passage from the write up:
Google is signaling that it will pay off the music industry with special deals that create brand-new — and potentially devastating! — private intellectual property rights, while basically telling the rest of the web that the price of being indexed in Search is complete capitulation to allowing Google to scrape data for AI training.
Signaling. Google has been doing one thing since it was inspired by the Yahoo.com, Overture, and GoTo.com pay-to-play approach to monetization. After 25 years, Googzilla is following its simple game plan: Become the datasphere. How could allegedly bright pundits miss this approach? I documented some of the systems and methods in my three monographs about Google written between 2003 and 2006: The Google Legacy, Google Version 2.0, and Google: The Digital Gutenberg. In those reports, I included diagrams of Google’s walled garden, and it is obvious that the architectural wonder is under active development. Quelle surprise!
So what?
Googzilla’s greatest weakness is itself and its assumption that information is infinite. I agree, but digital content is now recursing. Like the snake which nibbles on its tail, the company’s future is coming into view.
Do you hear the melody for Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”? Interrupted by ads, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
