Google YouTube Search Working the Way Alphabet Wants?
April 8, 2022
The online news service Mashable may be in gear for April’s Fool Day early. The story “YouTube Added 1,500 Free Movies, But Good Luck Finding Them” makes clear that Google YouTube search doesn’t work.
The write up reports:
YouTube has also made browsing its free titles much more annoying than it needed to be. The platform won’t just show you all its free titles and let you scroll through them to find your next binge watch. It certainly won’t let you filter them, so you can’t narrow your search to all of YouTube’s free action movies, or free romantic comedies. Rather, YouTube’s algorithm selects a few hundred ad-supported titles to show you in its “free to watch movies” section, hiding the rest.
The Mashable take is definitely not Googley. A new age, Silicon Valley like information service should be able to make sense of Google YouTube’s brilliant approach. A casual user will have access to some, smart software selected content. The desire for a way to browse a comprehensive result set is irrelevant. The Googley person will recognize:
- Paying for Google’s TV service delivers a better experience. Presumably that experience includes a listing of available content. On second thought, I am kidding myself. Smart software does not understand exceptions unless the system was trained to implement fine grained user classification.
- There are Google Dorks available to make quick work of narrowing Google result sets. Not familiar with Google Dorks? Well, certain individuals in Russia are and possibly a bright 12 year old near your home has this expertise.
- The results you see represent “all the world’s information.” The fact that you have knowledge which indicates a partial result set makes one point and only one point: You take what you get.
- Oh, those contractors and interns are enhancing the search experience again whilst doing no evil.
I hope this explains why Mashable does not understand the brilliant method Google uses to remain in close contact with its humanoid users.
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2022
Google: Who Makes the Tweaks? Smart Software or Humanoids?
April 7, 2022
I read “Google Tweaks Search and News Results to Direct People to Trusted Sources.” The main idea is that Google wants to do good. Instead of letting people read any old news, the Google “will offer information literacy tips and highlight widely cited source.” That was quick. Google News became available in 2002. Let’s see. My math is no too good, but that sure looks like more than a week ago.
How are the tweaks implemented? That’s a good question. The write up reports:
Since last June, the company has applied labels to results for “rapidly evolving topics,” which include things like breaking news and viral videos that are spreading quickly. It may suggest checking back later for more details as they become clearer. Starting in the US (in English) today, the labels will include some information literacy tips.
Right. Google and it. Are the changes implemented by Snorkelized software learns on the fly what news is not Google quality? Or, will actual Googlers peruse news and decide what’s okay and what needs to be designated l’ordure?
My bet is on one thing. Google’s many protestations that its algorithms do the heavy lifting is a useful way to put on a ghillie suit and disappear from the censorship, editing, and down checking of the inferior information.
If my assumption is incorrect, I can protest and look for my pen. I am 77 and prone to forgetfulness. Google has digital ghillies. Lucky outfit.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2022
Google: Pesky Memories of the Past
April 7, 2022
We suppose some people will never understand or accept Googley ways of working. Namely European regulators. Similarly, Google may never accept the EU has any authority over its business practices. TechCrunch reports, “Google Sued in Europe for $2.4BN in Damages Over Shopping Antitrust Case.” Writer Natasha Lomas reveals:
“Google is being sued in Europe on competition grounds by price comparison service PriceRunner which is seeking at least €2.1 billion (~2.4 billion) in damages. The lawsuit accuses Google of continuing to breach a 2017 European Commission antitrust enforcement order against Google Shopping. As well as fining Google what was — at the time — a record-breaking antitrust penalty (€2.42 billion), the EU’s competition division ordered the search giant to cease illegal behaviors, after finding it Google giving prominent placement to its own shopping comparison service while simultaneously demoting rivals in organic search results.”
But cease those behaviors it did not, though it made a gesture or two in that direction. Meanwhile, according to Sky News, Google tried to sidestep the ruling with fake comparison sites packed with ads for their clients’ products running alongside the Google Shopping box. Very creative. The platform also continues to run product search ads alongside general search results. Apparently, PriceRunner decided five years of flouting the enforcement order was enough. The write-up continues:
“PriceRunner’s lawsuit alleges Google has continued to violate competition law in relation to product search, as well as seeking compensation for historical infringements that have allowed Google to reap revenue at rivals’ expense. To back up its allegations, the search comparison company points to a study conducted by accountancy company, Grant Thornton, which it says found prices for offers shown in Google’s own comparison shopping service can be 16-37% higher for popular categories like clothes and shoes, and between 12-14% higher for other types of products vs rival price comparison services.”
Many of our readers will not be surprised to learn Google search continues to dominate in Europe. It maintains a greater than 90% market share in most of the European Economic Area and in the U.K. Nevertheless, PriceRunner is prepared to fight for many years, if necessary, with help from litigation funder Nivalion. We shall see whether the suit gets anywhere, but either way we suspect Google will continue with business as usual.
Cynthia Murrell, April 7, 2022
Do The Google AI Claims Grow Like a Pinocchio Body Part?
April 6, 2022
“Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540 Billion Parameters for Breakthrough Performance” is a variant of the Google quantum supremacy announcement. Bigger, better, faster, more powerful, able to leap problems with a single tap on the Enter key. The graphic in the Google AI Blog post does grow. Didn’t Carlo Collodi cook up a dummy. The chief feature — other than teaching some how not to lie — was that the marketing was handled by Walt Disney. Like IBM’s humorous announcement that a mainframe could defeat a quantum computer’s ability to crack encryption, a claim pointed at something not invented yet is interesting. Are those marketing people at Google and IBM mentally enervated by swigs of Five Hour Energy?
Like a certain fictional character’s nose and the anigif in the blog post, the claims continue to grow.
I looked at this graphic closely. I noted a few omissions; for example:
- A mechanism to report the incidence of outliers or exceptions between the baseline system and the state of the system after iterating over a period of a month
- Any reference to bias identification and amelioration. This is Dr. Timnit Gebru territory, and this landscape is one that Google appears to ignore, at least in public. In private negotiations and legal chambers, maybe the Google addresses the baked in biases? Maybe not?
- Any reference to the handling of images, content, videos that are related to sexual harassment; for instance, allegations about personnel issues at Google and DeepMind themselves?
- Data about the accuracy of the outputs? Are we in 95 percentile territory or close enough for horse shoes and ad matching?
The write up uses a number of buzzwords, some Google jargon, and quite a few links to other Google documents and experts at Microsoft and NVidia. I am convinced. I believe everything I read on the Internet and Google’s blogs.
Three observations:
First, what’s at stake in my opinion is dominance if possible of off the shelf smart methods. Consolidation is the name of the game, and Google wants to beat out Amazon, Microsoft, assorted China backed outfits, and any other challengers who want to go a different direction. Not every company wants to SAIL down a certain flow of methods.
Second, Google is — bless its single revenue stream — embracing Madison Avenue techniques to convince people that it is the Big Dog in smart methods: New, improved, money back guarantee, and free trial sell toothpaste. Why not Google AI?
Third, Google — despite the alleged monopoly position — is struggling with the what’s next? Legal hassles, management practices, competition from nuisance companies like Amazon, competition for technical talent, hard to control costs — These are real issues at the Alphabet Google YouTube construct.
At end of a Silicon Valley day, some in Mountain View see Google as a one trick pony. It seems far fetched, but it looks as if Steve Ballmer may have been spot on with that one-trick pony metaphor. And there is Pinocchio’s nose.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2022
What about the Alphabet Google DeepMind Personnel Zeitgeist? The What?
April 5, 2022
Ah, has, do you remember that zeitgeist (a popular word among some college student embroiled in German philosophy)? Zeitgeist apparently means “to a form of supraindividual mind at work in the world and developed in the cultural world view which pervades the ideas, outlooks, and emotions of a specific culture in a particular historical period.” But you knew that, right? Supraindividual. Cultural world. Pervasive in a specific culture. Let’s accept this Psychology Dictionary definition and move forward, shall we?
“Google AI Unit’s High Ideals Are Tainted With Secrecy” captures the spirit of Alphabet Google DeepMind implicit systems and methods for personnel management. (You may have to pay to view this story. The collection of money befits the cowboy-hatted Big Dog who has an interest in the real news outputs of the Washington Post.) The main idea in the write up is less that Google is secretive and more that Google makes situational decisions and refused to talk about the thought process behind them. Surprise? Nope.
The write up states:
The former DeepMind employee wrote that she was threatened with disciplinary action if she spoke about her complaint with her manager or other colleagues. And the process of the company’s sending her notes and responding to her allegations took several months, during which time the person she reported was promoted and received a company award. DeepMind said in a statement that while it “could have communicated better throughout the grievance process,” a number of factors including the Covid pandemic and the availability of the parties involved contributed to delays.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda — perfect in grade school explanations about a failure, less impressive from a very large, super sophisticated outfit with smart software and wizards occupying hip workspaces. (What about those cubbies for people which allow a door to be closed? Privacy, please!)
The write up includes another of those “we don’t want to remember that” moments. This is the Mustafa Suleyman lateral arabesque. You can visit the real news source for the apparently interesting details. I must admit this incident is cut from the same fabric as the baby making in Google legal and the hooker/drug matter on a yacht called Escape. For some color around this matter, see this CBS report.
I loved this passage about one allegedly harassed Googler’s alleged interactions with co workers:
DeepMind said it is “digesting” its former employee’s open letter to understand what further action it should take. A bold and positive step would be to remove the confidentiality clauses in harassment settlements.
Consequences? Presumably authorities are letting the information work through their bureaucratic intestines. The good news: No attempted suicide, no heroin, no divorces and fatherless children, and no death — this time. Alphabet Google DeepMind want to benefit humanity. That’s great. But the Googley zeitgeist reveals the spirit of the firm in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2022
When Filtering Is Not Enough: Google Lobbies
April 4, 2022
Lawmakers are finally getting serious about curbing the prodigious power of large tech firms. Google, for one, is fighting back with a resource it has in abundance: money. MarketScreener briefly reports, “Google U.S. Lobbying Jumps 27% as Lawmakers Aim to Rein In Big Tech.” The increase brings the company’s 2021 lobbying expenditure to $9.6 million. Writers Diane Bartz and Paresh Dave observe:
“That’s far below the more than $20 million it spent in 2018 but more than the $7.53 million that went to lobbying in 2020. Google spent $2.2 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. Google’s lobbying spend dipped in 2020 as it restructured its government relations teams. The biggest technology companies, including Amazon.com Inc, Meta Platforms Inc’s Facebook and Apple Inc, have been under pressure in Congress over allegations they abused their outsized market power. A long list of bills have been introduced aimed at reining them in, but none have become law.”
Not yet, but one significant bill did recently pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will Google’s and other companies’ lobbyists succeed in stopping it and similar legislation? We are sure they will do their best to fulfill their oh-so-lucrative contracts.
Cynthia Murrell, April 4, 2022
Google: Nosing into US Government Consulting
April 4, 2022
I spotted an item on Reddit called “Google x Palantir.” Let’s assume there’s a smidgen of truth in the post. The factoid is in a comment about Google’s naming Stephen Elliott as its head of artificial intelligence solutions for the Google public sector unit. (What happened to the wizard once involved in this type of work? Oh, well.)
The interesting item for me is that Mr. Elliott will have a particular focus on “leveraging the Palantir Foundry platform.” I thought that outfits like Praetorian Digital (now Lexipol) handled this type of specialist consulting and engineering.
What strikes me as intriguing about this announcement is that Palantir Foundry will work on the Google Cloud. Amazon is likely to be an interested party in this type of Google initiative.
Amazon has sucked up a significant number of product-centric searches. Now the Google wants to get into the “make Palantir work” business.
Plus, Google will have an opportunity to demonstrate its people management expertise, its ability to attract and retain a diverse employee group, and its ability to put some pressure on the Amazon brachial nerve.
How will Microsoft respond?
The forthcoming Netflix mockumentary “Mr. Elliot Goes to Washington” will fill someone’s hunger for a reality thriller.
And what if the Reddit post is off base. Hey, mockumentaries can be winners. Remember “This Is Spinal Tap”?
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2022
The Art and Craft of Sending Document Copies to Legal Eagles: The Googley Method
April 1, 2022
Not joke. I read an allegedly accurate write up. It is called “Justice Department Accuses Google of Hiding Business Communications.” The idea is that in the US communications between a lawyer and his/her/them clients are privileged. I am not attorney, but the idea is to allow the lawyer to discuss sensitive issues with the his/her/them paying the bills.
The write up states:
The DOJ writes in its brief that Google teaches employees to request advice from counsel around sensitive business communications, thereby shielding documents from discovery in legal situations. Once counsel is involved, the company can treat the documents as protected under attorney-client privilege.
My view is that Google is just being “Googley.” When people who perceive themselves as entitled and really smart, those his/her/thems get advice from bright, often lesser individuals. The Googlers process the advice and when a suggestion measures up to Googzilla’s standards, the suggestion just sorta maybe becomes a way to handle certain issues.
Those who are Googley understand. Individuals who are not Googley — presumably like those in the Department of Justice — don’t understand the Googliness of the action.
Laws. Rules of the road. Those are often designed for the non Googley. The Googley must tolerate the others. But having the cash to throw legal cannon fodder in the path of the lesser lights who would do the Google harm is a useful tactic.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2022
Google: The Quantum Supremacy Turtling
April 1, 2022
Okay, Aprils’ Fool Day.
“Google Wants to Win the Quantum Computing Race by Being the Tortoise, Not the Hare” explains that the quantum supremacy “winner” which captured “time crystals” has a new angle:
it’s clear that Google — or, to be more accurate, its parent company Alphabet — has its sights set on being the world’s premiere quantum computing organization.
Machines? Nah, think cloud, gentle reader. Google has it together, but the non Googley may struggle to get the picture. The write up says:
Parent company Alphabet recently starbursted its SandboxAQ division into its own company, now a Google sibling. It’s unclear exactly what SandboxAQ intends to do now that it’s spun out, but it’s positioned as a quantum-and-AI-as-a-service company. We expect it’ll begin servicing business clients in partnership with Google in the very near-term.
But? The write up says:
We can safely assume we haven’t seen the last of Google’s quantum computing research breakthroughs, and that tells us we could very well be living in the moments right before the slow-and-steady tortoise starts to make up ground on the speedy hare.
Maybe turtle? An ectotherm like Googzilla? Eye glass frames with a relevant Google product review? So many questions.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2022
Do Amazon and Google Shape Information to Advance Their Legislative Agenda?
March 31, 2022
The meeting in which it was decided to fund the Connected Commerce Council must have been fun: High fives, snorts of laughter, and derogatory comments perhaps? CNBC, a most interesting source of real 21st century news, published “How Google and Amazon Bankrolled a Grassroots’ Activist Group of Small Business Owners to Lobby Against Big Tech Oversight.” This is not a high school essay about “How to Make a Taco.” Nope. If true, the write up explains how two companies funded an information management campaign. I would describe this a weaponized propaganda, but I live in rural Kentucky and I am luck if I can remember where I left my bicycle. (Answer: in the garage.)
The write up explains:
The Connected Commerce Council, which pitches itself as a grassroots movement representing small business owners, is actually a well-financed advocacy group funded by tech heavy hitters Google and Amazon.
Interesting.
Here’s the newsy bit:
Lobbying watchdog group the Campaign for Accountability called 3C an “Astroturf” lobbying organization, thanks to the tech giants’ financial support. That’s a bit of Washington slang for a group that claims to represent grassroots entities, but in reality serves as an advocate for big industry. It’s a tactic used in Washington to push for specific legislative or regulatory goals using the sympathetic face of mom and pop organizations. The Campaign for Accountability described 3C in a 2019 report as an “Astroturf-style front group for the nation’s largest technology companies.”
Let’s think about the meeting or meetings which made it possible for two big outfits conclude that weaponizing content was a peachy keen idea. Some questions:
- When will the regulators emulate their European brothers, sisters, and thems and make meaningful steps to deal with cute weaponizing plays like this one?
- Why do executives sign off on such content manipulation — excuse me, I mean public interest messaging? Confidence in their ability to let loose flocks of legal eagles, a “hey, why not” attitude, or a belief in their own infallibility. (CNBC is not exactly Bellingcat, right?)
- Is it a disconnect between ethical behavior and high school science club insouciance?
These are good questions, and I don’t have answers.
The write up includes this remarkable quotation from a Connected Commerce big wheel:
In a statement to CNBC, Connected Commerce Council Executive Director Rob Retzlaff said all of the group’s members “affirmatively sign up – at events, online, or through a personal connection – and thousands have opened emails, responded to surveys, attended meetings and events, and communicated with legislators.” Retzlaff said, “I sincerely hope you do not (a) mischaracterize our efforts or the views of small businesses by suggesting we are an astroturf organization that puts words in people’s mouths, or (b) use outdated membership information to distract readers from legitimate concerns of small businesses and their engagement with policymakers.”
I like the “sincerely hope.”
Read the original. I think the article is a thought starter.
Oh, one more question:
Why didn’t Google just filter search results to add sauce to the Max Miller recreation of Genghis Khan’s fave little meat cakes? Low profile and the perfect explanation: The algorithm makes its own decisions.
Sure, just like the people in the meeting that concluded disinformation and propaganda to preserve the nifty cash machines that make astroturfing useful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
