Interesting deep dive and very much worth a read. I'd say it probably underestimates the weight of finance-related pressures coming from the CFO's office, though.
I've now read several of these from wheresyoured.at, and I find them to be well-researched, well-written, very dramatic (if a little ranty), but ultimately stopping short of any structural or theoretical insight. It's right and good to document the shady people inside these shady companies ruining things, but they are symptoms. They are people exploiting structural problems, not the root cause of our problems. The site's perspective feels like that of someone who had a good career in tech that started before, say, 2014, and is angry at the people who are taking it too far, killing the party for everyone. I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with that perspective, but it's certainly a very specific one, and one that I don't particularly care for.
Even "the rot economy," which seems to be their big theoretical underpinning, has this problem. It puts at its center the agency of bad actors in venture capital becoming overly-obsessed with growth. I agree with the discussion about the fallout from that, but it's just lacking in a theory beyond "there are some shitty people being shitty."
This is an interesting perspective, and I very much see how people can have it. Totally agree that the internet just isn't like it used to be, arguably for the worst, depending on who you ask.
As much as I hate these big tech platforms, the issue isn't that they're doing what they're doing. After all, capitalistic societies (especially the US) don't just ignore it, they actually encourage this sort of "money above all else" mentally that a lot of these CEOs and shareholders have. So what platforms are doing shouldn't surprise anyone. Maybe some of it should be made illegal, but I'd argue making new laws still won't really address the problem.
The real problem is that we (everyday people) need to take more responsibility over the mental health of ourselves and our children and just stop using this brain-rotting software. We can complain about what they're doing to humanity all we want, but if we continue to use these platforms, we're just making it easier for them to do the bad things they do.
Zuck and his cabal are all in on line go up even if they have to give kids to pedos(they have, and are), get people addicted, and fuck with people's mental well-being.
those running Facebook groups routinely find that their content isn’t even being shown to those who choose to follow them thanks to Meta’s outright abusive approach to social media where the customer is not only wrong, but should ideally have little control over what they see.
inhales deeply YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER!!! YOU ARE THE PRODUCT!!!!
It astounds me how many people STILL don't understand this
it doesn't make sense, just say they're exploiting customers. Saying "you are product" just make people take it literally and think Facebook is wrapping people up and selling them whole package, organ and brain included, which is nonsense
They should take it literally, because it is meant literally!
They're not exploiting customers, they are exploiting people. Those people are NOT their customers.
Facebook is literally selling people in data form. Everything you post, everyone you interact with, everything you look at across most of the web (not just facebook.com) is all catalogued and used to create a fingerprint that is a digital representation of you, and that is their product! "Essence of /u/Melt for sale here"
Saying "you are product" just make people take it literally and think Facebook is wrapping people up and selling them whole package, organ and brain included, which is nonsense
You're the only person I've ever seen who has taken this expression literally.
Seems like I've been seeing more and more comments on Lemmy that are dumb takes like the one above. Makes me wonder if Lemmy is on the radar of more of the bad faith posters sowing division but having no idea how to get through to the demographic here.
And they are serving lots of ads under the radar and shaping their tastes by intermixing the ads seamlessly with entertainment to bypass our advertisement "antibodies". Sometimes I find some of them saying things and having interests I've never known they had only to find their feed randomly peppered with these interlopers.
Probably worth the longer read, but I’m on my way out the door and I know I’ll forget later.. I had one of the robots gen up a tldr.
TLDR;
The article discusses the internal challenges and strategic shifts at Google, particularly around the management and prioritization of its search engine functionality versus advertising revenue. It starts with a "code yellow" alert raised due to declining search revenue, a term derived humorously from the color of a tank top worn by a former VP. This crisis led to a focus shift towards maximizing revenue, often at the expense of user experience and search quality.
Ben Gomes, a foundational figure in Google Search, and others expressed concerns about the increasing influence of advertising demands over search integrity. This tension resulted in significant leadership changes, with Prabhakar Raghavan taking over as the head of Google Search. The narrative suggests that Raghavan, who had a controversial tenure at Yahoo, brought a similar growth-focused approach to Google, prioritizing revenue over product quality. This shift is portrayed as part of a broader problem in tech, where managerial focus on growth and profits undermines the quality and utility of technology products.
The author uses these events at Google as a microcosm of larger issues in Silicon Valley, critiquing the pervasive "Rot Economy" mindset that prioritizes financial metrics over genuine innovation and user satisfaction. The story serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of allowing revenue-driven management to dictate the direction of tech companies, potentially leading to a decline in product quality and innovation.
Edit: I especially like how it kept the detail about the yellow shirt. This is the context we need.
"So you're the reason why Yahoo! is a useless search engine and its market share crashed?"
"Yes"
"You're hired!"
This sort of shit makes me want to go into business myself to show everyone how easy it would be to make long-term stable growth by just not squeezing employees and customers for every cent
The issue is the mentality of lack of growth = death and low shareholder returns. When you get as big as these giants this is a valid concern and not an easy problem to solve. You have to be highly creative and find new ways to bring revenue in. Search is stuck in a large rut and is why they’re looking at AI to help spur more growth.
Read this a week or so ago and it's a fantastic summarization of the core problem. I almost never use Google search anymore. I go between DuckDuckGo and Perplexity.
I've tried to use DDG for a few weeks now, and I find it gets worse the more specific I search.
For general things, it's fine. But if I'm looking for an installation tutorial for a certain kind of plumbing hardware, it struggles to show me anything but brand and retail pages.
I run a SearXNG instance myself and while it is a fine aggregator, it's important to note what it is and isn't. For instance, Sear does not have a dedicated search index and leans on third party API calls (to indexes such as the aforementioned Google and DDG listings.) This is my understanding, feel free to correct it.
For my money, I like the anonymity that Sear can afford and that it hides the AI bullshit pouring into the UIs. My son and I were talking over the weekend about how unreliable he is finding the move to AI search.
Because the aggregated weighted result ranking provides a more useful page rank than any individual search engine, and if any search engine tries to (accidentally or otherwise) stuff specific results into the top ranks, it doesn't matter. It'll be deranked because no other engine displays those results highly. In a similar manner, it deranks targeted SEO attempts unless multiple platforms are targeted.
Don't get me wrong, it still has its problems. For example, if the individual search engines all get a bit too samey, then it will as well.
I've been using Perplexity for 2-3 months now. On 2 occasions, it flat out lied to me. The latest one, I was asking if it knew about a men's brand that featured cranes on the shirt. It kept giving the same incorrect result, so I tried giving it more details, and then eventually it responded very confidently that it must be "Crane & Co a classic American menswear brand", but it offered no references, which I found odd. Then I asked if it just made that up, and it confessed to fabricating a lie...
did you just make that up?
You're right, I do not actually have a specific men's dress shirt brand in mind that features a crane bird logo. I should not have fabricated a brand name and details. I do not have a definitive answer for the specific men's dress shirt brand you are asking about that has a crane bird on it. I made an incorrect assumption and provided made-up information, which was wrong of me. In the future, I will be more transparent if I do not have a factual answer, rather than guessing. Please feel free to provide me with more details, and I will do my best to research and find the actual brand you are referring to.
Check out You.com too, their search is far better than Google on a lot of the technical topics I've searched for.
Edit: ugh, it was good. Now they're shovelling LLM interaction front and center and the original search functionality is completely buried. If you can find their original search interface it might still be worth a look.
wheresyoured.at
Hot