• smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s concerning to see how much power Google really holds over small websites

    “I understand that Google doesn’t owe us or anyone else traffic,” says Navarro, of HouseFresh. “But Google controls the roads. If tomorrow they decide the roads won’t go to an entire town, that town dies. It’s too much power to just shrug and say, ‘Oh well, it’s just the free market,’” she says.

    As we’ve seen so many times, they got their foot in the door by actually being the best, but now only really keep that position by paying to be the default on most devices. Given how Microsoft were forced to offer browser choices on Windows, is there hope that Google are forced to offer choices on Android and Chrome?

    • BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      Actually Google has been forced to offer choices on Android in the EU, but for existing devices the prompt only consists of a permanent notification that you can easily ignore: my partner has been ignoring it for the past month.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Google controls one set of roads, people choose which roads to use.

      On Android, you’re free to install any browser and search engine you wish. For example, “Bing for Android” is already a thing.

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        People choose not to choose. They’re not interested in engaging with the space or technology any deeper than the default.

        Exploiting this fact to the point of defacto monopoly should still be considered wrong.

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just because there is a choice doesn’t mean that the casual user is aware of it. You could always chose to install Firefox on Windows, but Microsoft still got done for pushing IE as the default.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          MS got dinged because they claimed Windows couldn’t work without MSIE, which was a lie… and they had a large market share.

          Nowadays Apple forces everyone to use Safari on iOS, and nobody bats an eye.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure the choice between Bing or Google, two search engines controlled by giant corporations who make money from advertising, is enough of a choice for a truly free Internet. And as the Bing outage last week showed us, most other search engines are just Bing repackaged.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Search engines are not baked into Android, they get exposed through apps like everything else.

          The choice is limited to every search engine out there… which are not many, but what can you do, it takes a lot of resources to spin up a search engine.

  • darvit@lemmy.darvit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    6 months ago

    I just love all the google seach AI memes that have sprung out of this change. They’re all unhinged, but the fun thing is that you can’t tell which one is real.

  • Boozilla@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    So their cynical move is to send more traffic to reddit at the same time reddit’s quality has gone down the toilet. Sounds like Google alright.

      • DdCno1@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        I meant, the “no ads” thing was only feasible in the very beginning, when they were solely funded by venture capital.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ads are fine in the form of search results that are clearly marked as sponsored. The issue with ads are when they are manipulative, intrusive, obnoxious or have sketchy data collecting

    • leetnewb@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is incredible looking back to 2005 and realizing that the world has 1.5 billion MORE people today and the number of internet users grew by ~5.5 billion. Doesn’t really explain Google’s changes - still remarkable how different the internet was that Google built its search platform around.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    Over the last two years, a series of updates to Google Search amount to a dramatic upheaval to the Internet’s most powerful tool, complete with an unprecedented AI feature.

    Last week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai stood in front of a crowd at the company’s annual developer conference and announced one of the most significant moves in the search engine’s history.

    Going forward, Pichai said, Google Search would provide its own AI-generated answers to many of your questions, a feature called “AI Overviews” that’s already rolled out to users in the United States.

    “Our recent updates aim to connect people with content that is helpful, satisfying and original, from a diverse range of sites across the web,” a Google spokesperson tells the BBC.

    Over the past few years, swaths of savvy internet users started adding the word “Reddit” to the end of their web searches in the hopes it would bring up people sharing their honest opinions, as opposed to websites trying to game Google’s system.

    Katie Berry, owner of the cleaning advice website Housewife How-Tos, assumes users will just end their searches if Google’s AI answers questions for them.


    Saved 92% of original text.

      • coffeetest@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I didn’t make my point clear. My question wasn’t really where the image was sourced, it was more about the value of what Google is doing matching an essentially random image next to the text it scraped from a website. Why did it choose that image? Adding a random image like that seems like what a low-grade SEO would do to tick the needed boxes not a high-quality product from a multi-billion dollar company. The image in no way enhances the meaning of what I asked. In fact, it does the opposite. It is a bit of Google becoming what it mocked.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It picked an image from a website talking about AI, and slapped it next to a response talking about AI.

          Theoretically, a website with a text related to the response, “should” have an image related to the response… but yeah, it looks kind of like cheap box ticking, like the AI didn’t check whether the photo content itself was relevant or not.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I think stuff like this would be more appropriate for voice control devices, namely Google Assistant