BlueSky Post.

Transcript.

If you tell someone to “Google it” at this point you’re telling them to look up five ads and some AI-generated bs instead of the actual thing they want to know.

old guy takes long hit on the bong

“Back in my day, search engines used to find things besides the wreckage of late-stage capitalism.”

  • HobbitFoot English
    1313·
    10 months ago

    Except that I wouldn’t use Google Search as an example of enshittification.

    It isn’t like Google tried to break search to increase profits. Instead, the industry around Google changed to adapt to Google’s search algorithms.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      27·
      10 months ago

      No, they most certainly broke it. Instead of just searching for what you type in, it now “interprets” your query and the interpretation is always whatever has more ads. If you switch to Verbatim mode, the results are noticeably better.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      19·
      10 months ago

      They absolutely did break it. Without even getting into all of the convoluted shenanigans they pull now, their advanced search operators are dog shit now. They completely ignore negative search terms whenever they have a bunch of ads to show you with that term, or when there’s an abundance of agenda-rich propaganda articles with that term. They’re fucking poopoopcacca now.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        13·
        10 months ago

        It also sucks that all information is now hidden away in a youtube tutorial or on a reddit thread full of dead links and deleted comments. I don’t want to watch your shit YouTube video, I never did.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          10·
          10 months ago

          Right? I never understood why people would rather watch some over sensationalized YouTube video that is full of fluff, rather than just quickly reading an article. I can get information I need from an article before a YouTuber even finishes their stupid intro. I guess the average person is pretty bad at reading.

    • badbrainstorm @lemmy.today
      10·
      10 months ago

      Not really true.

      Googles stance on protecting net neutrality totally changed over the years with the cell phone internet browsing, and them getting in bed with Verizon. Google=Verizon

      Obama fought off the end of net neutrality his entire presidency.

      Now they have a large financial reasonability to direct you to specific content and companies

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/net-neutrality-is-ending-heres-how-your-internet-use-could-change

      • HobbitFoot English
        32·
        10 months ago

        I’m not defending Google itself, just noting that the declining quality of its search is based less on a malicious decision on Google’s part and more a result of SEO.

        • DoYouNot@lemmy.world
          7·
          10 months ago

          I mean, the 5+ ads that Google serves at the top before real results are not the result of SEO. It’s a problem sure, but don’t take the credit away from Google. They worked hard to make sure you see those ads.

    • assembly@lemmy.world
      103·
      10 months ago

      I wonder if there is a new term to use to target secondary or tertiary entshittification. I mean Google did participate in entshittification with the increase in ads but they are also a big victim of the same entshittification. Like maybe the entshittification is rolling downhill.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      5·
      10 months ago

      I feel like they did break search to profit, though possibly through inaction. It doesn’t feel like they’re even trying to deliver good content over seo garbage anymore.

      Hard to distinguish malice from incompetence with Google, though.