Here Is a Happy Thought: The Web Is Dead
September 12, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I read “One of the Last, Best Hopes for Saving the Open Web and a Free Press Is Dead.” If the headline is insufficiently ominous, how about the subtitle:
The Google ruling is a disaster. Let the AI slop flow and the writers, journalists and creators get squeezed.
The write up says:
Google, of course, was one of the worst actors. It controlled (and still controls) an astonishing 90% of the search engine market, and did so not by consistently offering the best product—most longtime users recognize the utility of Google Search has been in a prolonged state of decline—but by inking enormous payola deals with Apple and Android phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on their products.
The subject is the US government court’s ruling that Google must share. Google’s other activities are just ducky. The write up presents this comment:
The only reason that OpenAI could even attempt to do anything that might remotely be considered competing with Google is that OpenAI managed to raise world-historic amounts of venture capital. OpenAI has raised $60 billion, a staggering figure, but also a sum that still very much might not be enough to compete in an absurdly capital intensive business against a decadal search monopoly. After all, Google drops $60 billion just to ensure its search engine is the default choice on a single web browser for three years. [Note: The SAT word “decadal” sort of means over 10 years. The Google has been doing search control for more than 20 years, but “more than 20 years is not sufficiently erudite I guess.]
The point is that competition in the number scale means that elephants are fighting. Guess what loses? The grass, the ants, and earthworms.
The write up concludes:
The 2024 ruling that Google was an illegal monopoly was a glimmer of hope at a time when platforms were concentrating ever more power, Silicon Valley oligarchy was on the rise, and it was clear the big tech cartels that effectively control the public internet were more than fine with overrunning it with AI slop. That ruling suggested there was some institutional will to fight against the corporate consolidation that has come to dominate the modern web, and modern life. It proved to be an illusion.
Several observations are warranted:
- Money talks; common sense walks
- AI is having dinner at the White House; the legal eagles involved in this high-profile matter got the message
- I was not surprised; the author, surprised and somewhat annoyed that the Internet is dead.
The US mechanisms remind me of how my father described government institutions in Campinas, Brazil, in the 1950s: Carry contos and distribute them freely. [Note: A conto was 1,000 cruzeiros at the time. Today the word applies to 1,000 reais.]
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2025
Google: Klaxons, Red Lights, and Beeps
September 12, 2025
Here we go again with another warning from Google about scams in the form of Gemini. The Mirror reports that, “Google Issues ‘Red Alert’ To Gmail Users Over New AI Scam That Steals Passwords.” Bad actors are stealing passwords using Google’s own chatbot. Hackers are sending emails using Gemini. These emails contain a hidden message to reveal passwords.
Here’s how people are falling for the scam: there’s no link to click in the email. A box pops up alerting you to a risk. That’s all! It’s incredibly simple and scary. Remember that Google will never ask you for your username and password. It’s still the easiest tip to remember when it comes to these scams.
Google issued a statement:
“The tech giant explained the subtlety of the threat: ‘Unlike direct prompt injections, where an attacker directly inputs malicious commands into a prompt, indirect prompt injections involve hidden malicious instructions within external data sources. These may include emails, documents, or calendar invites that instruct AI to exfiltrate user data or execute other rogue actions.’ As more governments, businesses, and individuals adopt generative AI to get more done, this subtle yet potentially potent attack becomes increasingly pertinent across the industry, demanding immediate attention and robust security measures.’”
Google also said some calming platitudes but the record replay is getting tiresome.
Whitney Grace, September 12, 2025
Google Does Its Thing: Courts Vary in their Views of the Outfit
September 10, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I am not sure I understand how the US legal system works or any other legal system works. A legal procedure headed by a somewhat critical judge has allowed the Google to keep on doing what it is doing: Selling ads, collecting personal data, and building walled gardens even if they encroach on a kiddie playground.
However, at the same time, the Google was found to be a bit too frisky in its elephantine approach to business.
The first example is that Google was found guilty of collecting user data when users disabled the data collection. The details of this gross misunderstanding of how the superior thinkers at Google interpreted assorted guidelines and user settings appear in “Jury Slams Google Over App Data Collection to Tune of $425 Million.” Now to me that sounds like a lot of money. To the Google, it is a cash flow issue which can be addressed by negotiation, slow administrative response, and consulting firm speak. The write up says:
Google attorney Benedict Hur of Cooley LLP told jurors Google “certainly thought” it had permission to access the data. He added that Google lets users know it will continue to collect certain types of data, even if they toggle off web activity.
Quite an argument.
The other write up with some news about Google behavior is “France Fines Google, Shein Record Sums over Cookie Law Violations.” I found this passage in the write up interesting:
France’s data protection watchdog CNIL on Wednesday fined Google €325 million ($380 million) and fast-fashion retailer Shein €150 million ($175 million) for violating cookie rules. The record penalties target two platforms with tens of millions of French users, marking among the heaviest sanctions the regulator has imposed.
Several observations are warranted:
- Google is manifesting behavior similar to the China-linked outfit Shein. Who is learning from whom?
- Some courts find Google problematic; other courts think that Google is just doing okay Googley things
- A showdown may occur from outside the United States if a nation state just gets fed up with Google doing exactly whatever it wants.
I wonder if anyone at Google is thinking about hassling the French judiciary in the remainder of 2025 and into 2026. If so, it may be instructive to recall how the French judiciary addressed a 13-year-old case of digital Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Pavel Durov was arrested, interrogated for four days, and must report to French authorities every couple of weeks. His legal matter is moving through a judicial system noted for its methodical and red-tape choked processes.
Fancy a nice dinner in Paris, Google?
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2025
Google Monopoly: A Circle Still Unbroken
September 9, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I am no lawyer, and I am not sure how the legal journey will unfold for the Google. I assume Google is still a monopoly. Google, however, is not happy with the recent court decision that appears to be a light tap on Googzilla’s snout. The snow is not falling and no errant piece of space junk has collided with the Mountain View campus.
I did notice a post on the Google blog with a cute url. The words “outreach-initiatives” , “public policy,” and DOJ search decision speak volumes to me.
The post carries this Google title, well, a Googley command:
Read our statement on today’s decision in the case involving Google Search
Okay, snap to it. The write up instructs:
Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want. That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.
Okay, not em dashes, so Gemini did not write the sentence, although it may contain some words rarely associated with Googley things. These are words like “easily choose”. Hey, I thought Google was a monopoly. The purpose of the construct is to take steps to narrow choice. The Chicago stockyards uses fences, guides, and designated killing areas. But the cows don’t have a choice. The path is followed and the hammer drops. Thonk.
The write up adds:
Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely.
The logic is pure blue chip consultant with a headache. I like the use of the word “imposed”. Does Google impose on its users; for instance, irrelevant search results, filtered YouTube videos, or roll up of user generated information in Google services? Of course not, a Google user can easily choose which videos to view on YouTube. A person looking for information can easily choose to access Web content on another Web search system. Just use Bing, Ecosia, or Phind. I like “easily.”
What strikes me is the command language and the huffiness about the decision.
Wow, I love Google. Is it a monopoly? Definitely not Android or Chrome. Ads? I don’t know. Probably not.
Stephen E Arnold, September 9, 2025
Google and Its Reality Dictating Machine: What Is a Fact?
September 9, 2025
I’m not surprised by this. I don’t understand why anyone would be surprised by this story from Neoscope: “Doctors Horrified After Google’s Healthcare AI Makes Up A Body Part That Does Not Exist In Humans.” Healthcare professional are worried about their industry’s over the widespread use of AI tools. These tools are error prone and chock full of bugs. In other words, these bots are creating up facts and lies and making them seem convincing.
It’s called hallucinating.
A recent example of an AI error involves Google’s Med-Gemini and it took an entire year before anyone discovered it. The false information was published in a May 2024 research paper from Google that ironically discussed the promises of AI Med-Gemini analyzing brain scans. The AI “identified” the “old left basilar ganglia infarct” in the scans, but that doesn’t exist in the human body. Google never fixed its research paper.
Hallucinations are dangerous in humans but they’re much worse in AI because they won’t be confined to a single source.
“It’s not just Med-Gemini. Google’s more advanced healthcare model, dubbed MedGemma, also led to varying answers depending on the way questions were phrased, leading to errors some of the time. ‘Their nature is that [they] tend to make up things, and it doesn’t say ‘I don’t know,’ which is a big, big problem for high-stakes domains like medicine,’ Judy Gichoya, Emory University associate professor of radiology and informatics, told The Verge.
Other experts say we’re rushing into adapting AI in clinical settings — from AI therapists, radiologists, and nurses to patient interaction transcription services — warranting a far more careful approach.”
A wise fictional character once said, “Take risks! Make mistakes! Get messy! In other words, say “I don’t know!” Could this quick kill people? Duh.
Whitney Grace, September 9, 2025
Bending Reality or Creating a Question of Ownership and Responsibility for Errors
September 3, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
The Google has may busy digital beavers working in the superbly managed organization. The BBC, however, seems to be agitated about what may be a truly insignificant matter: Ownership of substantially altered content and responsibility for errors introduced into digital content.
“YouTube secretly used AI to Edit People’s Videos. The Results Could Bend Reality” reports:
In recent months, YouTube has secretly used artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak people’s videos without letting them know or asking permission.
The BBC ignores a couple of issues that struck me as significant if — please, note the “if” — the assertion about YouTube altering content belonging to another entity. I will address these after some more BBC goodness.
I noted this statement:
the company [Google] has finally confirmed it is altering a limited number of videos on YouTube Shorts, the app’s short-form video feature.
Okay, the Google digital beavers are beavering away.
I also noted this passage attributed to Samuel Woolley, the Dietrich chair of disinformation studies at the University of Pittsburgh:
“You can make decisions about what you want your phone to do, and whether to turn on certain features. What we have here is a company manipulating content from leading users that is then being distributed to a public audience without the consent of the people who produce the videos…. “People are already distrustful of content that they encounter on social media. What happens if people know that companies are editing content from the top down, without even telling the content creators themselves?”
What about those issues I thought about after reading the BBC’s write up:
- If Google’s changes (improvements, enhancements, AI additions, whatever), will Google “own” the resulting content? My thought is that if Google can make more money by using AI to create a “fair use” argument, it will. How long will it take a court (assuming these are still functioning) to figure out if Google’s right or the individual content creator is the copyright holder?
- When, not if, Google’s AI introduces some type of error, is Google responsible or is it the creator’s problem? My hunch is that Google’s attorneys will argue that it provides a content creator with a free service. See the Terms of Service for YouTube and stop complaining.
- What if a content creator hits a home run and Google’s AI “learns” then outputs content via its assorted AI processes? Will Google be able to deplatform the original creator and just use it as a way to make money without paying the home-run hitting YouTube creator?
Perhaps the BBC would like to consider how these tiny “experiments” can expand until they shift the monetization methods further in favor of the Google. Maybe one reason is that BBC doesn’t think these types of thoughts. The Google, based on my experience, is indeed thinking these types of “what if” talks in a sterile room with whiteboards and brilliant Googlers playing with their mobile devices or snacking on goodies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2025
Misunderstanding the Google: A Hot Wok
August 29, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I am no longer certain how many people read blog posts. Bing, Google, and Yandex seem to be crawling in a more focused way; that is, comprehensiveness is not part of the game plan. I want to do my small part by recommending that you scan (preferably study) “Google Is Killing the Open Web.”
The premise of the essay is clear: Google has been working steadily and in a relatively low PR voltage mode to control the standards for the Web. I commented on this in my Google Legacy, Google Version 2.0, and other Google writings as early as 2003. How did I identify this strategic vision? Easy. A Googler told me. This individual like it when I called Google a “calculating predator.” This person made an effort (a lame one because he worked at Google) to hear my lectures about Google’s Web search.
Now 22 years later, a individual has put the pieces together and concluded rightly that Google is killing the open Web. The essay states:
Google is managing to achieve what Microsoft couldn’t: killing the open web. The efforts of tech giants to gain control of and enclose the commons for extractive purposes have been clear to anyone who has been following the history of the Internet for at least the last decade, and the adopted strategies are varied in technique as they are in success, from Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE) to monopolization and lock-in.
Several observations:
- The visible efforts to monopolize have been search, ads, and the mobile plays. The lower profile technical standards are going to be more important as new technologies emerge. The accuracy of the early Googlers’ instincts were accurate. People (namely Wok) are just figuring it out. Unfortunately it is too late.
- Because online services have a tendency to become monopolies, the world of “online” has become increasingly centralized. The “myth” of decentralization is a great one but so was “Epic of Gilgamesh.” There may be some pony in there, but the reality is that it is better to centralize and then decide what to move out there.
- The big tech outfits reside in a “country,” but the reality is that these are borderless. There is no traditional there there. Consequently governments struggle to regulate what these outfits do. Australia levies a fine on Google. So what? Google just keeps being Googley. Live with it.
One cannot undo decades of methodical, strategic thinking, and deft tactical moves quickly. My view is that changing Google will occur within Google. The management thinking is becoming increasingly like that of an AT&T type company. Chop it up and it will just glue itself back together.
I know the Wok is hot. Time to cool off and learn to thrive in the walled garden. Getting out is going to be more difficult than many other tasks. Google controls lots of technology, including the button that opens the gate to the walled garden.
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2025
More Innovative Google Management: Hit Delete for Middle Managers
August 28, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I remember a teacher lecturing about the Great Chain of Being. The idea was interesting. The Big Guy at the top, then not-so-important people, and at the bottom amoebae. Google, if the information in “Google Has Eliminated 35% of Managers Overseeing Small Teams in Past Year, Exec Says,” is on the money has embraced the Great Chain of Being.
The write up says:
Google has eliminated more than one-third of its managers overseeing small teams, an executive told employees last week, as the company continues its focus on efficiencies across the organization. “Right now, we have 35% fewer managers, with fewer direct reports” than at this time a year ago, said Brian Welle, vice president of people analytics and performance ….“So a lot of fast progress there.”
Yep, efficiency. Quicker decisions. No bureaucracy.
The write up includes this statement from the person at the top of the Great Chain of Being:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai weighed in at the meeting, reiterating the need for the company “to be more efficient as we scale up so we don’t solve everything with headcount.”
Will Google continue to trim out the irrelevant parts of the Great Chain of Being? Absolutely. Why not? The company has a VEP or a Voluntary Exit Program. From Googler to Xoogler in a flash and with benefits.
Several observations:
- Google continues to work hard to cope with the costs of its infrastructure
- Google has to find ways to offset the costs of that $0.47 per employee deal for US government entities
- Google must expand its ability to extract more cash from [a] advertisers and [b] users without making life too easy for competitors like Meta and lurkers waiting for a chance to tap into the online revenue from surveillance, subscriptions, and data licensing.
Logic suggests that the Great Chain of Being will evolve, chopping out layers between the Big Guy at the top and the amoebae at the bottom. What’s in the middle? AI powered systems. Management innovation speeds forward at the ageing Google.
Fear, confusion, and chaos appear to be safely firewalled with this new approach.
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2025
Google Anti-Competitive? No. No. No!
August 28, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read another anti Google news release from a mere country. When I encounter statements that Google is anti competitive, I am flabbergasted. Google is search. Google is the Web. Google is great. Google is America. What’s with countries that don’t get with the program? The agenda has been crystal clear for more than 20 years. Is there as dumb drug in your water or your wheat?
“Google Admits Anti-Competitive Conduct Involving Google Search in Australia” reports that Google has been browbeaten, subjected to psychological pressure, and outrageous claims. Consequently, the wonderful Google has just said, “Okay, you are right. Whatever. How much?”
The write up from a nation state says:
Google has co-operated with the ACCC, admitted liability and agreed to jointly submit to the Court that Google should pay a total penalty of $55 million. It is a matter for the Court to determine whether the penalty and other orders are appropriate.
Happy now?
The write up crows about forcing Google to falter emotionally and make further statements to buttress the alleged anti competitive behavior; to wit:
Google and its US parent company, Google LLC, have also signed a court-enforceable undertaking which the ACCC has accepted to address the ACCC’s broader competition concerns relating to contractual arrangements between Google, Android phone manufacturers and Australian telcos since 2017. Google does not agree with all of the ACCC’s concerns but has acknowledged them and offered the undertaking to address these concerns.
And there is ample evidence that Google abandons any alleged improper behavior. Sure, there have been minor dust ups about accidental WiFi interception in Germany, some trivial issues with regards to the UK outfit Foundem, and the current misunderstanding in America’s judicial system. But in each of these alleged “issues,” Google has instantly and in good faith corrected any problem caused by a contractor, a junior employee, or a smart “robot.” Managing Google is tough even for former McKinsey consultants.
Mistakes happen.
The nation state issues word salad that does little to assuage the mental and financial harm Google has suffered. Here are the painful words which hang like a scimitar over the fair Google’s neck:
The ACCC remains committed to addressing anti-competitive conduct like this, as well as cartel conduct. Competition issues in the digital economy are a current priority area.
Google is America. America is good. Therefore, that which Google does is a benefit to America and anyone who uses its services.
How can countries not figure out who’s on first, what’s on second, and I don’t know’s on third.
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2025
Google Uses a Blue Light Special for the US Government (Sorry K-Meta You Lose)
August 27, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read an interesting news item in Artificial Intelligence News, a publication unknown to me. Like most of the AI information I read online I believe every single word. AI radiates accuracy, trust, and factual information. Let’s treat this “real” news story as actual factual. To process the information, you will want to reflect on the sales tactics behind Filene’s Basement, K-Mart’s blue light specials, and the ShamWow guy.
“The US Federal Government Secures a Massive Google Gemini AI Deal at $0.47 per Agency” reports:
Google Gemini will soon power federal operations across the United States government following a sweeping new agreement between the General Services Administration (GSA) and Google that delivers comprehensive AI capabilities at unprecedented pricing.
I regret I don’t have Microsoft government sales professional or a Palantir forward deployed engineer to call and get their view of this deal. Oh, well, that’s what happens when one gets old. (Remember. For a LinkedIn audience NEVER reveal your age. Okay, too bad LinkedIn, I am 81.)
It so happens I was involved in Year 2000 in some meetings at which Google pitched its search-and-retrieval system for US government wide search. For a number of reasons, the Google did not win that procurement bake off. It took a formal protest and some more meetings to explain the concept of conforming to a Statement of Work and the bid analysis process used by the US government 25 years ago. Google took it on the snout.
Not this time.
By golly, Google figured out how to deal with RFPs, SOWs, the Q&A process, and the pricing dance. The write up says:
The “Gemini for Government” offering, announced by GSA, represents one of the most significant government AI procurement deals to date. Under the OneGov agreement extending through 2026, federal agencies will gain access to Google’s full artificial intelligence stack for just US$0.47 per agency—a pricing structure that industry observers note is remarkably aggressive for enterprise-level AI services.
What does the US government receive? According to the write up:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai characterized the partnership as building on existing relationships: “Building on our Workspace offer for federal employees, ‘Gemini for Government’ gives federal agencies access to our full stack approach to AI innovation, including tools like NotebookLM and Veo powered by our latest models and our secure cloud infrastructure.”
Yo, Microsoft. Yo, Palantir. Are you paying attention? This explanation suggests that a clever government professional can do what your firms do. But — get this — at a price that may be “unsustainable.” (Of course, I know that em dashes signal smart software. Believe me. I use em dashes all by myself. No AI needed.)
I also noted this statement in the write up:
The $0.47 per agency pricing model raises immediate concerns about market distortion and the sustainability of such aggressive government contracting. Industry analysts question whether this represents genuine cost efficiency or a loss-leader strategy designed to lock agencies into Google’s ecosystem before prices inevitably rise after 2026. Moreover, the deal’s sweeping scope—encompassing everything from basic productivity tools to custom AI agent development—may create dangerous vendor concentration risks. Should technical issues, security breaches, or contract disputes arise, the federal government could find itself heavily dependent on a single commercial provider for critical operational capabilities. The announcement notably lacks specific metrics for measuring success, implementation timelines, or safeguards against vendor lock-in—details that will ultimately determine whether this represents genuine modernization or expensive experimentation with taxpayer resources.
Several observations are warranted:
- Google has figured out that making AI too cheap to resist appeals to certain government procurement professionals. A deal is a deal, of course. Scope changes, engineering services, and government budget schedules may add some jerked chicken spice to the bargain meal.
- The existing government-wide incumbent types are probably going to be holding some meetings to discuss what “this deal” means to existing and new projects involving smart software.
- The budget issues about AI investments are significant. Adding more expense for what can be a very demanding client is likely to have a direct impact on advertisers who fund the Google fun bus. How much will that YouTube subscription go up? Would Google raise rates to fund this competitive strike at Microsoft and Palantir? Of course not, you silly goose.
I wish I were at liberty to share some of the Google-related outputs from the Year 2000 procurement. But, alas, I cannot. Let me close by saying, “Google has figured out some basics of dealing with the US government.” Hey, it only took a quarter century, not bad for an ageing Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
