[HN Gopher] Google is screwed, even if it wins its antitrust case
___________________________________________________________________
Google is screwed, even if it wins its antitrust case
Author : gumby
Score : 76 points
Date : 2023-01-26 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| warcher wrote:
| Can somebody explain to me the existential threat AI is posing to
| the search business?
|
| I am familiar with ChatGPT composing reasonable sounding answers
| to prompts. I get that I could type in "what's the best vacuum
| cleaner under $500?" or something like that, and both Google and
| ChatGPT could generate an answer for me.
|
| But I want the best, most accurate answer, not a set of
| banalities that a neural network has composed to convincingly
| pass the sniff test. I actually care about the content being
| right, or as close to right as possible.
|
| I admit freely that I'm clearly missing some possibilities here.
| Can anyone fill me in?
| evanmoran wrote:
| I'll give it go - Essentially the quality of the average
| website is declining due to poor incentives such as SEO
| optimization and content creation farms. Meanwhile, language
| models like ChatGPT are becoming more advanced. This presents a
| problem for Google, as ChatGPT will over time become more
| likely to provide accurate answers than a website search.
| Additionally, many websites will begin using ChatGPT to
| generate large amounts of content, making search even worse and
| more efficient to ask ChatGPT directly.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Prompt: Write a ten-paragraph piece in the style of Gizmodo that
| is guaranteed to make the front page of HN.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The article doesn't seem to back up its headline at all.
|
| Google is under antitrust investigation for _ads_ , while it
| talks about the threat to the company being _AI_. The main point
| of the article is:
|
| > _It would be a lot easier Google could move fast and break
| things... But with the full force of the US government bearing
| down on it, the search giant can't do that now... Google will
| need to conduct itself slowly and tentatively in order to avoid
| jeopardizing itself in its battle with the Justice Department._
|
| Sure it might need to move more slowly in its ads business (not a
| good time to buy an ads-related startup). But I see no evidence
| Google will need to act "slowly and tentatively" in terms of
| incorporating chatbot functionality into Search.
|
| So I don't see anything "screwing" Google about this at all, not
| in the least.
| thewataccount wrote:
| One of the potential issues a lot of people are speculating
| about is the lower impression counts. For example - when trying
| to write a script using some api's I'm not super familiar with,
| I might do 6+ google searches. This will be similar for a lot
| of fields when trying to find an answer to something, news,
| other research, etc.
|
| That means you're loading a fresh page of ads every search AND
| all the ads on those sites too.
|
| With chatGPT (And I'm aware Google has something similar) - I
| can (and have) just asked it a question, and it will
| answer/write entire scripts for me. That means there's only a
| single page load.
|
| Basically people are speculating Google may struggle to
| monetize a chatbot to the extent they can monetize every single
| search + site load. You certainly _can_ the speculation is
| whether the drastically lower impression counts will impact
| their overall profitability.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Honestly I don't think it's going to make much of a
| difference.
|
| The real money is in ads that are targeted to a search --
| whether you're asking Search or a chatbot for "best fleece
| half-zip for men" you'll get shown the same ads targeted to
| that.
|
| While if you're asking it to write a script for you... you
| probably were to busy to be even looking at or clicking the
| ads Google was showing anyways back when you were looking for
| Stack Overflow answers, no matter if it took 100 searches.
| (There's also nothing stopping Google from showing you 3 new
| ads before each new chatbot response.)
|
| I have full faith in Google figuring out how to insert just
| as many ads as before. ;)
| thewataccount wrote:
| > I have full faith in Google figuring out how to insert
| just as many ads as before. ;)
|
| Oh they will I'm sure - I'm just not sure if they'll make
| _as much_ or not. Basically the question is if they can
| recover the cost per impression money to cost per click
| IMO.
|
| Or maybe they pivot to something way worse - like in-
| content ads. Oh man imagine "best fleece half-zip for men"
| - "The most highly recommended and best option is the
| [insert marketing here but make it sound great and
| natural]".
|
| But yeah I highly doubt their existence is in jeopardy or
| anything like that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Google is under antitrust investigation for ads,
|
| Its under antitrust investigation for _lots_ of things; its
| currently being _prosecuted_ in the US for ads.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Yeah, 1 trillion company... I'm in all tears.
| alexb_ wrote:
| AI is not the issue here. There is this very large assumption
| that just so happens to underpin a _VERY_ large part of the tech
| industry, not just Google. It is assumed that ad spending will
| always be worth it, ad revenue will always increase, and that the
| market for digital advertising and targeted digital advertising
| in particular will always be large enough to support the behemoth
| that it is today.
|
| But what happens when marketing spend goes down (as it does in a
| recession)? What happens when customers aren't willing to pay as
| much for your advertising product (as happens in a recession)?
| What happens when borrowed money can't be secured easily, and
| debts come due (once again, as happens in a recession)?
|
| Are people really ready for an economy where user data isn't
| massively lucrative? Are people really ready for an economy where
| advertising doesn't pay enough to support the "free" services we
| take for granted? Are people really ready for a world where free
| video hosting, free hard drives, free email, free cloud-run
| office software are not sustainable?
| xnx wrote:
| It's OK if marketing spend goes down as long as digital
| continues to steal from non-digital advertising. Example:
| Advertising money spent on barely-targeted billboards and TV
| commercials could move to digital substitutes. This is some of
| what Google is trying to do with YouTube purchasing the rights
| for some NFL games.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Digital can steal all they want but if the thing you have
| attached to the ad ends up costing more than the ad gives
| you, market share means nothing. All this means is you lose
| even more money.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > But what happens when marketing spend goes down (as it does
| in a recession)? What happens when customers aren't willing to
| pay as much for your advertising product (as happens in a
| recession)? What happens when borrowed money can't be secured
| easily, and debts come due (once again, as happens in a
| recession)?
|
| Typically - what happens is - central banks lower interest
| rates until they're negative in real yields - and people start
| spending like crazy again.
|
| Who knows what will happen in the future. But that's been the
| previous playbook.
| smegger001 wrote:
| that only works if people A) still trust the underlying
| currency and B) you don't create hyperinflation. What happens
| in the future when the global economy isn't denominated in
| petrodollars?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Our government printed 10% of GDP as debt to hand out to
| people for doing nothing. This is almost the epitome of
| Monopoly money.
|
| The worst that happened was 10% inflation - which is a FAR
| cry from hyperinflation.
|
| We had negative real rates for a decade before Covid - and
| the worst that happened was ~7% home price appreciation.
|
| We're not going to get anything resembling "hyper" unless
| this country basically becomes another country.
| [deleted]
| efsavage wrote:
| > It is assumed that ad spending will always be worth it
|
| This is mostly true. If it wasn't worth it, businesses wouldn't
| spend money on it. At my last startup we spent money on ads
| that were worth it, for us, so we stopped. We also found ads
| that were worth it, so we spent more.
|
| > ad revenue will always increase
|
| Ad revenue is cyclical, it's often the first thing to get cut
| and the first thing to come back, but it's always going to be
| there in some form barring a completely new economy.
|
| > the market for digital advertising and targeted digital
| advertising in particular will always be large enough to
| support the behemoth that it is today.
|
| Advertising shifts around from time to time (e.g.
| print->TV->online), but it seems unlikely that it's not going
| to be digital for the foreseeable future, and targeted will
| likely always outperform non-targeted. That's not to say it
| will stay at any particular company/property/app/etc. but
| unfortunately at this stage it's probably only going to
| concentrate and migrate from one behemoth to another like it
| has for most of the history of the industry.
|
| (I work for Google but not in AI, search or ads)
| mollusk_bound wrote:
| Weren't all these questions answered during the great
| recession, It wasn't easy but Google weathered the storm. Why
| is any upcoming recession going to be substantially different.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Google should be split into ad business and search business.
| endisneigh wrote:
| People who complain about Google remind me of the meme "no one
| goes there anymore - it's too full."
|
| Google has a lot of legitimate headwinds, but honestly I don't
| think antitrust or AI competitors are them.
|
| The legitimate "destruction" of legitimacy on the internet, thus
| making Search more error prone is an issue. Closed off ecosystems
| such as apple is an issue.
|
| The antitrust case is a big deal, but it's unlikely Google would
| be broken up due to it.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I made this comment in another thread but I can't decide if LLM /
| GPT is a seismic shift in search or just a gimmick.
|
| I remember when Copilot came out last year and everyone was up in
| arms about how it will replace most developers, then the chatter
| quickly died when people realized that it's not that great
| outside a few specific scenarios, it just looked like it could
| kill the SWE industry from people that haven't been inside of it.
|
| Now it seems the same is happening with ChatGPT. While it's easy
| to draw conclusions based on what you've seen ChatGPT do, I
| wonder if it will provide long term value or be a gimmick much
| like Copilot, having a bunch of simple applications but fail at
| the more advanced applications (which would be required for it to
| dethrone say Google Search).
|
| Personally I think LLM/GPT will never replace the current Google
| search, it however will be baked into almost every search engine
| and allow an "alternative" way to search the web, where you get
| answers to simple questions right away without having to go to a
| website.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > it however will be baked into almost every search engine and
| allow an "alternative" way to search the web, where you get
| answers to simple questions right away without having to go to
| a website.
|
| That's what Google does quite a lot already anyway. The
| difference is that Google directly cites its source and offers
| alternative links - which is necessary, since if you need to
| verify the answer with a Google search, you might as well skip
| asking ChatGPT (or an equivalent) beforehand.
|
| Since ChatGPT is fundamentally trained to do a different thing
| (word completion), I have a hard time imagining that you can
| sufficiently coax it into replacing an actual search. But we
| will see.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Maybe a part of Google's problem is it's focus on "personalized"
| advertising.
|
| Simple, context based advertising is much easier/simpler to
| implement --- no privacy invasion required. It also annoys the
| consumer a lot less and by some accounts is more cost effective.
|
| Amazon in a ecommerce site. If I go there and search for widgets,
| I should reasonably expect (and maybe even appreciate) some ads
| from widget makers. What I don't expect and what I find annoying
| is ads for widgets following me all over the internet for days;
| even on non-commerce sites; even after I already made my widget
| purchase at a brick and mortar --- aka, the Google "personalized"
| approach.
|
| "Personalized" ads are really kinda dumb --- but apparently
| Google has "sold" enough advertisers on the idea so they can
| charge a premium for them.
| ex3xu wrote:
| Google in 1998: _Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives_ from
| the original paper _The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web
| Search Engine_ [0]
|
| "Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search
| engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business
| model do not always correspond to providing quality search to
| users... we expect that advertising funded search engines will be
| inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs
| of the consumers... we believe the issue of advertising causes
| enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive
| search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."
|
| Google in 2003: Eric "You can trust us with your data" Schmidt
| convinces Sergey and Larry of the bonkers amount of money they
| can make by adding a monopoly on digital search advertising to
| leverage their monopoly on digital search. They proceed to switch
| to the same advertising business model that hindered their early
| competitors.
|
| Google in 2008: Buys out Doubleclick to maintain Adsense's
| monopoly on digital search advertising and doubles down on
| surveillance capitalism.
|
| Google in 2011: Buys out AdMeld, changes AdX contracts to be even
| more anticompetitive to maintain monopoly on digital search
| advertising.
|
| Google in 2017: Loses $2.7 billion antitrust lawsuit in the EU.
| Response? No changes to business model, but oust a vocal
| supporter of the decision from Google-funded think tank New
| America. [1]
|
| Google in 2023: Sued again.
|
| [0] http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131370
| labrador wrote:
| I tried to imagine an ad in chat output by asking ChatGPT a
| question and then making up an ad:
|
| Q: What is superglue?
|
| A: Super glue, also known as cyanoacrylate, is a type of adhesive
| that forms a strong bond quickly and can be used on a variety of
| surfaces. It is often used for small repairs, such as broken
| ceramics or toys, and can also be used in crafts and other
| projects. Super glue is available in liquid or gel form, and is
| sold in small tubes or bottles. It should be used with caution,
| as it can bond skin together and can be difficult to remove.
|
| For your superglue needs, you can't do much better than Gorilla
| brand superglue. Its high strength and quick set time make
| Gorilla Super Glue the go-to adhesive for a variety of household
| projects.
|
| Edit: There used to be a radio guy, I believe it was Joe Franklin
| who blended the ads into his spiel so you couldn't tell when the
| ad started and left off, so maybe it will be something like this.
|
| A: Super glue, also known as cyanoacrylate, is a type of adhesive
| that forms a strong bond quickly and can be used on a variety of
| surfaces. A brand like Gorilla with it's high strength and quick
| setting time making it perfect for for small repairs, such as
| broken ceramics or toys, and can also be used in crafts and other
| projects. Super glue is available in liquid or gel form, and is
| sold in small tubes or bottles. It should be used with caution,
| as it can bond skin together and can be difficult to remove.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't think Google really _wants_ to be 100% dependent on ad
| revenue, it 's just a hard cord to cut.
|
| They're trying to move into paid YouTube subs. They presumably
| could try the same with search.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I can't access it now but what does it say if you ask for a
| naturalistic, brief prompt written like a friend of the reader?
| labrador wrote:
| Prompt: Write some ad copy for me in the style of a friend
| recommending I use superglue
|
| "Hey friend, have you ever had a broken vase or a pair of
| glasses that you thought were beyond repair? Well, let me
| tell you, super glue is a game changer. It's strong, fast-
| drying, and can fix just about anything. Trust me, I've used
| it on everything from ceramic to plastic and it works like a
| charm. So, next time you have a household emergency, don't
| throw it away, just grab the super glue and fix it up like
| new. You'll be amazed at how easy and effective it is!"
|
| Prompt: Write some ad copy for me in the style of a friend
| recommending I use Gorilla brand superglue
|
| "Hey there! Are you tired of using weak, unreliable glues for
| your DIY projects and household repairs? Look no further than
| Gorilla super glue! This stuff is seriously strong and
| durable. I've used it to fix everything from a broken toy to
| a wobbly chair, and it holds up like a champ. Plus, it dries
| quickly and forms a bond that's almost impossible to break. I
| trust Gorilla super glue so much that I wouldn't use anything
| else. Give it a try, and you'll see the difference for
| yourself."
| dpkirchner wrote:
| Those ain't great, ha. Thanks.
| jefftk wrote:
| Then they'd need sponsored content disclosures.
| labrador wrote:
| I remembered it wasn't Joe Franklin, it was Paul Harvey that
| blended ads and content. I don't recall him giving any
| disclosures which is why I didn't like his radio talk show.
| varispeed wrote:
| All big corporations have to be broken up. They have ill
| influence on everything and they are what many describe symptoms
| of late stage capitalism and our failure to regulate.
|
| They are like a player of Monopoly who bought everything.
|
| Alphabet shouldn't exist in its current form and so Apple, Amazon
| and many other corporations.
| cpeterso wrote:
| How is a "big corporation" defined? Limiting the number of
| employees a company has (1000? 10,000? 100,000?) would have
| interesting effects. Companies might be less likely to hire
| junior people. Bigger companies would need to outsource or hire
| contractors to avoid hitting their employee limit. There would
| be competition among companies providing outsourcing or
| contractor services. That could be good for companies
| outsourcing work (having more choices), but there would be a
| lot of market inefficiencies.
| auctoritas wrote:
| One downside to a bunch of small companies instead of a few
| large ones: competition is fiercer, the small companies can't
| rest on their laurels the way the large ones do. Consequently
| work life balance deteriorates for the average worker.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Truly, the problem is US complacency. It's a great day to tax
| businesses when US companies dominate the market, but as soon
| as a foreign competitor steps in? It's time to defend American
| competition and ingenuity!
|
| Hopefully, pushback from European regulators who are harder to
| fool (or buy out) will force the US to admit there's egg on our
| face. We've let corporate America write the rules for too long,
| and our democratic control over their abuse has become dilute
| and helpless. Something's gotta give, and I'm cheering for the
| countries that take user privacy and consumer rights seriously.
| titzer wrote:
| > Hopefully, pushback from European regulators who are harder
| to fool (or buy out) will force the US to admit there's egg
| on our face. We've let corporate America write the rules for
| too long, and our democratic control over their abuse has
| become dilute and helpless. Something's gotta give, and I'm
| cheering for the countries that take user privacy and
| consumer rights seriously.
|
| Hopefully. But don't underestimate the general public's
| abject apathy and religious belief that more "freedom" in
| markets fixes everything, even when it is obvious that bad
| actors are employing dark patterns to exploit the anarchy.
| [deleted]
| innagadadavida wrote:
| The big corporations that are doing the most harm are the food
| companies. They inject animals with antibiotics, kill millions
| of them in a very cruel manner, employ cheap illegal labor to
| process it and contaminate the environment beyond repair. The
| tech industry is bad but nothing compared to the irreparable
| harm the food industry causes.
| zone411 wrote:
| I think the opposite: Google will do great. Google+Deepmind's ML
| research groups are leading everyone. While it's true that they
| are late in getting something like ChatGPT to market, I think it
| was a wakeup call and it will be good for their ad revenues once
| they do. When they release it, they'll know much more about
| users' intent than from a simple search engine query and users
| will stay on their properties for longer. The concerns about cost
| are overblown - they don't need to run it for every query.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Are they even late to market? I don't think the lunch has been
| eaten yet.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > While it's true that they are late in getting something like
| ChatGPT to market
|
| Are they? ChatGPT is by all means a loss leader; I don't see
| why Google would need a halo AI product right now.
| smoldesu wrote:
| But Alphabet will probably be fine. YouTube and Android are still
| billion-user products that aren't being displaced with AI, and
| their advertising business doesn't seem threatened much by this
| either.
|
| So what's the scoop? I use ChatGPT, it hasn't replaced my search
| engine. They're insisting that search is obsoleted with AI (and
| Google is spooked internally) but I have yet to see any research-
| based evidence supporting it. Personally, I use both tools for
| completely different things, and while they are similar by-way-of
| a text box with a prompt, their responses are completely distinct
| and neither one can replace the other.
| gumby wrote:
| The point made by the article is that these big lawsuits
| distracted management. And Google's management is so
| ineffective today, imagine how much worse it would be with this
| crowbar poked in.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Maybe they will slow down on the reorgs. Could be good.
| kris_wayton wrote:
| > But Alphabet will probably be fine. YouTube and Android are
| still...
|
| If you look at a revenue breakdown[1] and then also figure in
| that search has much higher margins than the other areas, it's
| pretty skewed to search dollars. They've improved it some, but
| there's a long way to go.
|
| [1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/how-does-google-make-
| money
| SCHiM wrote:
| I recently asked gpt to give me a markdown table of the
| continents, their landmass and their populations. I checked the
| numbers and they matched wikipedia.
|
| Google gave me listicles instead...
| smoldesu wrote:
| I recently asked ChatGPT to multiply 2 numbers together.
| Every search engine I tried yielded a product, except ChatGPT
| which gave me an excuse.
|
| They're useful in their own right, but you can't fool
| yourself into believing either one cannibalizes the other.
| dylan604 wrote:
| curious what the excuse was.
| harsh1618 wrote:
| To be fair to ChatGPT though, all the search engines first
| recognize that the query is trying to perform an arithmetic
| calculation, then pass it on to a calculator. ChatGPT
| already understands what is being asked, it would be
| trivial to perform the next step, pass it on to a
| calculator and return the right answer.
| harsh1618 wrote:
| The fact that you felt the need to check Wikipedia shows why
| LLMs can't replace search, at least not in their current
| form.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > I recently asked gpt to give me a markdown table of the
| continents, their landmass and their populations. I checked
| the numbers and they matched wikipedia.
|
| But there is no reason to think that it will be correct,
| structurally. While you can find examples that work, the AI
| does not know the truth. An AI does NOT have an understanding
| of populations, locations, etc.
|
| Google didn't return answers, but it directed you to sites
| with answers. Those sites were like curated by hand by a
| human who does understand the meaning of the data
| jayd16 wrote:
| Why didn't Wolfram Alpha disrupt Google? GPT is just passed a
| threshold of user friendliness?
| alexb_ wrote:
| YouTube being a billion user product has nothing to do with how
| successful they are. My free service of "Contact me and I will
| give you a dollar" can grow to billions of users if you borrow
| enough money, and don't care at all about actually making it
| back.
| Someone wrote:
| > YouTube and Android are still billion-user products that
| aren't being displaced with AI
|
| I think they care waaaay more for billion-dollar products than
| for billion-user products.
|
| > and their advertising business doesn't seem threatened much
| by this either.
|
| Is it? What fraction of their ad revenues comes from ads on
| search result pages?
| daqhris wrote:
| No tech invention ever kicked out the previous iteration.
| Google and ChatGPT will co-exist. Same way faxes are still
| alive even if mobile telephony conquered the world.
|
| What will happen is that new use cases will be set in place.
| Some people might head to Google for diversity of results.
| Others will prefer ChatGPT for one single search result.
|
| In my opinion, only the "I'm feeling lucky" function on Google
| will be challenged or replaced.
|
| How can a tech journalist imagine that noobs will modify the
| default search engine on their Chrome browser and Android
| smartphones? These guys are not realistic.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| I don't think comparing IBM to Microsoft is fair or accurate.
| Microsoft is incredibly relevant and valuable today, many years
| after ending its antitrust investigation.
| blibble wrote:
| 20 years ago MS had total dominance over the computer industry
|
| (like IBM 20 years before that)
|
| now MS aren't even trendsetter, but they are still raking in
| the cash
|
| they are pretty much exactly where IBM was 20 years ago
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Google hasn't been a trendsetter for a few years now, either
| (unless you count enforcing web standards with Chrome). Also,
| calling "relevant industry giant making heaps of money" a
| failure scenario is quite a stretch.
| blibble wrote:
| > unless you count enforcing web standards with Chrome
|
| yes, being that the web is THE current platform for
| technology
|
| in the same way Win32 was 20 years ago
|
| > Also, calling "relevant industry giant making heaps of
| money" a failure scenario is quite a stretch.
|
| I didn't call it a failure scenario
|
| IBM's making quite a lot of money still (though trending
| down and not nearly as much as it used to)
| jliptzin wrote:
| I don't understand arguments that say google will be left in the
| dust when it comes to AI. There's no network effects like
| Facebook, it just takes a lot of money to train the models, which
| google obviously has. Do we really believe google, with all its
| resources and engineering talent, has no ability to develop
| something on par with OpenAI?
| itslennysfault wrote:
| They also already have best in class AI. Google's PaLM is a
| much larger model than GPT3 and even larger than most estimates
| of GPT4. They also have Imagen which blows the doors off of
| Dall-e 2. In no way is google behind OpenAI and they have
| access to WAAAY more training data and resources in general.
| Google just hasn't shipped a consumer or publicly available
| product with any of it yet.
| randmeerkat wrote:
| > Do we really believe google, with all its resources and
| engineering talent, has no ability to develop something on par
| with OpenAI?
|
| Yes, they're a large, bureaucratic organization, that's
| incapable of developing new products or avenues of growth.
|
| For the sake of argument though, let's say Google created a
| product on par with ChatGPT, they would just kill it after a
| few months like every other Google service that they've made.
| miked85 wrote:
| Google acquired DeepMind almost a decade ago. I'm not sure if
| anything significant has been produced yet? Maybe it has, and
| it's all behind the scenes.
| Maursault wrote:
| > If you'll pardon the jargon, this kind of thing is what experts
| refer to as a "big problem."
|
| I really hate this kind of inscrutable industry rhetoric. Why
| can't they just speak plainly?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Sometimes, I wonder if for the sake of small business and general
| good, if horizontal integration should be heavily regulated and
| restricted for publicly traded companies (not private ones).
|
| For example, Apple. Why aren't the software and hardware
| divisions separated, at a minimum? Furthermore, I might wonder,
| why couldn't iPhone, iPad, Mac, Audio Accessories etc. be
| separate companies? Sure, you'd lose a ton of the _integration_
| that makes it special... but I wonder sometimes if the world
| would be a better place. Same for Microsoft: Why can 't Windows,
| Office, Azure, Xbox, all be separate companies? If Windows was an
| independent company I think it would probably be way healthier
| for Windows at this point (less Microsoft bloat)...
|
| I feel (just feel) that publicly-traded companies should be
| forced to pick a market segment and stick to it, and any other
| businesses that get too large (say, $1B revenue) must be broken
| off.
| thinking4real wrote:
| I tend to agree with you, or at least the sentiment of "not
| perpetual growth", but I think then we run into the problem
| that the US might lose dominance in various industries to
| countries who won't throttle their corps like that
|
| Which maybe isn't the worst. Maybe we'd see an exodus of the
| rats in our own govt and leadership as they chase their efforts
| into the new world leaders.
|
| Maybe this is the end stage of capitalism and while it was a
| good experiment to get us into worth surplus it comes at the
| cost of liberty. Maybe at some point we just need to tweak the
| entire economic system into the next era.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Software-hardware coevolution has large benefits to the
| consumer. What you are proposing is to just make the products
| worse and more expensive.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Here's the thing: That might be true, and yet, _necessary_
| for the good of society and the good of the long-term.
|
| See, for example, Standard Oil. They massively lowered oil
| prices - we broke them up. See also AT&T. Once their
| usefulness as a monopoly ran out, we broke them up.
|
| Plus, we can see that hardware-software coevolution has large
| benefits - but who is to say that having companies separate
| does not also have large benefits of its own? You might not
| have Windows shoving Microsoft Teams and Edge and Bing down
| your throat... or Apple pushing Apple Music to your parents.
| If Apple can't integrate, perhaps we'd have more open
| standards for interoperability.
| kitotik wrote:
| Regulating horizontal integration seems like it would be very
| difficult. How exactly would those horizons be clearly defined?
|
| I've always thought of Apple having an emphasis on vertical
| integration(hardware+software=product). So maybe their foray
| into services would be the line in the sand?
| jb1991 wrote:
| Why can't Google compete in AI? They have major AI researchers
| with legendary experience under their belts, what is stopping
| Google from building something like ChatGPT to augment their
| search? I guess I don't understand where the threat is. They have
| a lot more resources than OpenAI.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| I would rather deal with Google than Microsoft or Amazon, so I
| hope they still have some future.
| hbn wrote:
| > Win or loose, Google is in trouble
|
| Did the recent layoff apocalypse hit Gizmodo editors too?
| caconym_ wrote:
| Perhaps the author has simply chosen to discard cognitive
| structures that will be made redundant in the new post-literacy
| age of ubiquitous ML language tools. Would that we all had such
| vision, and the courage to act on it.
| counttheforks wrote:
| Are we ignoring that ChatGPT is stuck in the past and that
| continuously retraining it on current data is currently still
| prohibitively expensive?
| mattnewton wrote:
| Yes, because this is a solvable problem probably easier than
| figuring out how to make it a useful product (like knowing what
| it doesn't know and preventing convincing hallucinations in
| some scenarios while maintaining the ability to hallucinate for
| creative queries). There is a lot of work on approaches like
| using search retrieval methods like embedding similarity
| lookups, and then pasting summaries of the retrieved documents
| in as context. This allows the LLM to cite new data without
| retraining. (That's also something google is very good at)
| titzer wrote:
| I'm not so sure AI is as big a threat as Google perceives it to
| be; back in 2009 the HUGE EXISTENTIAL THREAT was Social,
| therefore Google+, but that came and went and Google's growth
| continued unabated. That said, I do see a place for language-
| model driven search. And I shudder to think that language models
| will be specifically coerced, bribed, and have ingrained in their
| brains only what advertisers want. If you thought the search
| landscape of the 2020s is fully of SEO'd crap, just wait. Google
| is not in an enviable position.
| Groxx wrote:
| It didn't turn out to be existential, but they absolutely lost
| the Social "war" and it's costing them billions: Facebook owns
| a large chunk of all ad revenue now, in no small part because
| of this.
|
| Not that I'm complaining - the less that's under a mega-
| conglomerate, the better things tend to be. But it was and is a
| gigantic failure for Google, possibly their largest ever.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| >Facebook owns a large chunk of all ad revenue now
|
| Facebook rode the wave of open 3P consumer data which is now
| closing everywhere, from DMA to iOS restrictions. That's why
| they're trying desperately to pivot to the metaverse, so they
| can use first party data. Facebook is currently experiencing
| an existential threat.
|
| Social media diminished to algortihmic media (e.g. TikTok)
| which will likely diminish to AI media sooner rather than
| later.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| The article also assumes that Google doesn't have it's own
| chatGPT or other AI irons in the fire right now.
|
| Google Assistant dropped a year after Alexa, and Android's
| reach helped bolster it's marketshare (antitrust investigation
| or not).
| cpeterso wrote:
| Like Google's LaMDA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMDA
| danjoredd wrote:
| I honestly don't think that chatgpt will destroy Google
| either...whenever I use search engines, I use them to find a
| website I could not remember the name of, locations like
| restaurants, etc. ChatGPT will be a tool to be used alongside
| search engines, not a replacement
| dylan604 wrote:
| If Google is so afraid of AI, then they should have done the
| most Googley of things in building AI into Google to get
| everyone use to it, then drop it. Deprecate the crap out of it
| like all of the other things. Then, since Googs dropped, it
| must not be good right? Boom! problem solved
| Zigurd wrote:
| TBF Google found they already owned a first-tier social
| network. It was disguised as a video sharing site.
|
| The article quotes someone as saying history repeats itself.
| Debatable. Google built Alphabet to be defensible against
| antitrust cases like this. Expect a consent decree.
|
| As you wrote: "I do see a place for language-model driven
| search." And unlike social media this has less dependency on
| user perception of whether a social network is cool.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I agree about AI, though for slightly different reasons. Google
| published the foundational paper for some of the most important
| tech behind the exciting AI stuff[1]. Because there's every
| reason to believe they are technically capable of competing,
| the reason they aren't offering AI products is probably based
| on their beliefs about how practical that is right now (cost /
| reliability / etc). They also have all their Waymo experience.
|
| Basically, I'm not convinced that Google is "behind" on the
| tech, but just disagrees about product strategy. Obviously
| there are lots of examples where this dooms the current leader
| (Xerox Parc!) - but I think it's too early to say? I wouldn't
| short them yet imo.
|
| [1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/08/transformer-novel-
| neural-n...
| mattnewton wrote:
| If being screwed looks like sharing Microsoft's "fate" it sounds
| not bad? Especially from a shareholder perspective.
|
| And honestly while I was there, there were plenty of jokes about
| how this was already happening, then Google was the new
| Microsoft.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think this is the author's wishful thinking more than anything
| else. Google isn't going to face some existential threat by
| Microsoft+OpenAI, at least not in the near term because the
| biggest chunk of the work to get a good AI response in a search
| product is retrieving good context to feed it.
|
| How do you do that? Well you need an index of the web and a good
| ranking algo... oh wait.
| jchw wrote:
| Google is probably screwed without it. Even if ad-tech isn't
| exactly a bubble, I strongly believe it is overvalued even still.
|
| Furthermore, the product that made their name is thoroughly lost.
| I dread Google Search today. If I found something on Google
| yesterday, I have no idea if I'll be able to locate it through
| the sea of blog SPAM and SEO garbage tomorrow. Google web search
| strongly favors big websites when sometimes the page you need is
| never going to be there. As an example, Google puts heavy weight
| on near-SPAM sites like Pinterest which produce almost no
| original content, and on abusive hosts like Fandom (formerly
| Wikia) who manages to beat out community wikis by replacing
| admins that try to migrate off and winning in SEO.
|
| I am not trying to suggest Duck Duck Go or Bing are actually
| better overall, but if I see a web search covered in results like
| that, I sometimes find that they do in fact give me somewhat
| better result rankings.
|
| The only thing I really have any strong affection for is YouTube,
| and the people and content that made the platform special are
| constantly unhappy with it's corporate direction, not to mention
| the utter lack of support, claiming and affirming in appeals
| stupid pointless crap like "you said a naughty word in the first
| ten seconds of the video" when anyone with working ears can
| easily verify they did not.
|
| And that's the tip of the iceberg. I think a lot of ventures,
| like GMail, only ever made sense as computers and bandwidth just
| kept getting dramatically cheaper. It's difficult to beat free.
| Well, what happens when those things stop getting cheaper, and
| GMail keeps getting more expensive to run?
| dilippkumar wrote:
| > Furthermore, the product that made their name is thoroughly
| lost. I dread Google Search today. If I found something on
| Google yesterday, I have no idea if I'll be able to locate it
| through the sea of blog SPAM and SEO garbage tomorrow.
|
| I've had pretty good results with kagi.com
|
| YMMV.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Almost a meme at this point:
|
| > I am not trying to suggest Duck Duck Go or Bing are actually
| better overall
|
| Kagi is, however. Well worth putting your money where your
| mouth is and supporting them.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| They said something like this after I exhausted my daily
| search allowance during the beta: go search somewhere else. I
| mean who are these disrespectful little pricks/snotty kids?
| :DDD
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Honestly, It's the same price as copilot, which is imho one
| of my biggest tools in my coding arsenal currently.
|
| I don't think it should be priced as high. I think they
| should add other services maybe w/ their own prices, like a
| photonmail competitor, and api's so people can build things
| off their tech but pay per query, etc.
|
| I think they could at least have tiers like 100/month 1, 400
| searches for $2.99, 1000 for $5.99, unlimited for 8.99.
| They'd reach a bigger audience, which would likely mean more
| dollars overall. If I were them, I'd also create a mobile app
| that's completely free, just to get people hooked on the
| results while using mobile, or maybe have some privacy-based
| ads in the app, though the actual search results would have
| none, and remove that for paid accounts.
| danjoredd wrote:
| Im thinking on going with Searx instead. I don't want to pay
| money, and I already have a server I use for a variety of
| reasons. I get why most wouldn't want to do that...self
| hosting isn't for everybody. But I would prefer it to paying
| someone else or having my data sold
| kvandy wrote:
| Kagi has been a delightful experience for me for two months.
| Don't think I'm ever going back.
| _jab wrote:
| Interesting - haven't heard of Kagi before but I looked them
| up and I can definitely see how a subscription-funded search
| engine leads to a better incentive structure. But can you
| provide qualitative examples of how your experience has been
| better than on Google?
| Karunamon wrote:
| - Result relevance seems on par with Google about five
| years ago. Very rare that I need to go past page 1.
|
| - Advanced search operators actually work. When you quote
| something it actually searches for that exact string, when
| you minus something it actually excludes it.
|
| - Categorization in the search results; for instance all of
| the low signal listicles can be segregated into their own
| section.
|
| - Image search that is not intentionally nerfed that will
| just give you the image directly
|
| - The ability to up and down rank specific sites from your
| results (something you can't feasibly do without an account
| anyways); good riddance Pinterest and spammy stack*
| reposters
|
| - DDG-like bang searches, with the ability to add custom
| sites
|
| - The obvious one: no ads or tracking or perverse
| incentives
| randmeerkat wrote:
| So, I googled Kagi, found their link... Not only is it
| required to create an account to use their service, they want
| a credit card to bill as well! Hard pass.
| barbazoo wrote:
| What would you prefer? Anonymous payments? And regardless
| of payment method, how would you avoid creating an account
| to tie the payment to?
| codalan wrote:
| Payment via digital gift cards sold on Amazon, e.g.
| Mullvad
|
| Granted, this would probably be a very miniscule amount
| of their users.
| groby_b wrote:
| That's not how businesses process payment. Any
| responsible finance department will call a hard no on
| that. (And from a consumer side, asking to pay with a
| gift card is usually a huge red flag that a scam is
| incoming)
| willcipriano wrote:
| I believe they mean a gift card for their service, as in
| they should offer gift cards. Not send us $50 worth of
| Google Play gift cards.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Mullvad-VPN-Devices-Protect-
| Security/...
| Karunamon wrote:
| Yes, as a paid service who directly sells their primary
| product rather than a data mining, anti-privacy homunculus
| whose most famous product is merely a means to an end, an
| account and payment is required. This is strictly better
| than Google.
| randmeerkat wrote:
| DuckDuckGo is 100% privacy focused, free, and doesn't
| require an account or credit card to use.
| Karunamon wrote:
| They are privacy focused in as much as they don't track
| you themselves, they just hand you off to Microsoft to be
| tracked.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/24/ddg-microsoft-tracking-
| blo...
|
| Their founder is also on record as "down ranking
| misinformation", which is not a judgment call I want my
| search engine making. Relevance and truth are two
| different things.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Their founder is also on record as "down ranking
| misinformation"
|
| https://mashable.com/article/duckduckgo-search-engine-
| russia...
| Karunamon wrote:
| Also here, straight from the horse's mouth:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33247856
|
| The sketchy and indirect way they engage with this
| criticism put me off of ever trusting DDG.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Thanks!
| danjoredd wrote:
| If you are into self-hosting, I hear Searx is pretty
| good. Been thinking on setting that up on my personal
| server so I can just stop relying on companies
| [deleted]
| Karunamon wrote:
| Your goals are mutually exclusive.
| bluepoint wrote:
| Are you sure about the credit card? I signed up without
| one. There is a free option.
| honkler wrote:
| since you talked about adtech being a bubble, I'll hijack your
| post to recommend this book:
| https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374538651/subprimeattenti...
| crawsome wrote:
| Devil's advocate, lots of Google services are 100% benevolent.
| Like Google Open Fonts. Did you know most of the font licenses
| packaged with Windows, you're not even allowed to package them
| into a game?
| kmbfjr wrote:
| There is nothing altruistic about Google. It is all about
| collecting as much metadata as possible to feed the ad tech
| money pump.
|
| At the very least, pulling from Google for fonts, which
| nearly everyone does, announces the page where it begins the
| process.
| paulcole wrote:
| You're ignoring mobile + local + timely searches which are
| incredibly common and very valuable. Google doesn't put "heavy
| weight" on Pinterest or "SPAM and SEO garbage" there. These
| SERPs are full of local and useful results and paid
| ads/placements. This is where Google's interests lie.
| spijdar wrote:
| > The only thing I really have any strong affection for is
| YouTube, and the people and content that made the platform
| special are constantly unhappy with it's corporate direction,
| not to mention the utter lack of support, claiming and
| affirming in appeals stupid pointless crap like "you said a
| naughty word in the first ten seconds of the video" when anyone
| with working ears can easily verify they did not.
|
| This is mostly an aside, but it's worth putting into
| perspective that many of these complaints are related to
| Google's _ads_ and automatic monetization through ads, as well
| as their content recommendation network /userbase.
|
| In other words, I think as Google's ad-revenue shrinks (or the
| bubble bursts), the Youtube ad policies will seem to become
| more and more draconian, but despite all the anger towards
| Youtube, the alternatives involve... no (automatic)
| monetization at all.
|
| I don't think a lot of people are really conscious of how a lot
| of modern Youtube (specifically the big content creators who
| have made careers out of Google's monetization options) are
| implicitly reliant on Google's ad-tech bubble. And most people
| are pretty derisive of Google's attempts at alternative
| monetization e.g. youtube premium. I fear when the bubble
| bursts (or just shrinks a lot), a lot of the high quality
| content people enjoy on youtube will burst or shrink with it.
| [deleted]
| branon wrote:
| Big YouTubers have seen the writing on the wall, and have
| been diversifying income streams for years. A lot of artists
| are migrating towards the "patron" model (think Renaissance
| patronage, but crowd-sourced) using tools like Patreon or
| Liberapay. This strikes me as inherently more pure than
| throwing videos at Google's algorithm to see which one can
| bring home the biggest slice of automatic-ad-revenue pie.
|
| The attention economy is doomed, too many people are online
| now for it to be viable. Patronage and connecting with
| followers will come to dominate. Not to oversimplify, but
| there's a theory that all an artist needs to be financially
| stable is 1,000 true fans chipping in a few dollars a month.
| Google's YouTube middleware currently occupies a comfortable
| niche in the bringup process required to meet that figure...
| but they're ultimately nonessential.
|
| As the bubble shrinks, creators will look back and wonder why
| they ever bothered driving millions of random people toward a
| platform that mostly pays out to Google.
| itcrowd wrote:
| I agree with most of what you say here, but a few small
| points to contest:
|
| First, it's not just big YouTubers moving towards the
| patron model. I see many smaller creators doing the same,
| and I'm some cases thriving.
|
| Second, I don't agree that the patron model will become the
| dominant model. I think this line of thinking is more of a
| medieval model from which the word derives. In terms of the
| number of people paying by ads & PII or through patronage,
| the ads& PII crowd will win. (the dollar value per
| contribution might be lower).
|
| Third, I don't have any reason to believe that creators
| will "look back and wonder" why they would like to attract
| a million viewers. I think it might be a very good way to
| advertise to their patr(e)on-age.
|
| Finally, there is another revenue model of direct
| sponsorship / placed ads which you do not seem to consider.
| I think it is a major contributor to the economics of
| medium-large creators.
|
| Maybe my gut feeling is a response to your notion of the
| "attention economy being doomed" because "there are too
| many people online". To me, it seems the opposite. The
| attention economy is _thriving_ because there are _so many
| people_ online.
|
| (Interesting topic! Thanks for making me type all of this)
| spijdar wrote:
| > Google's YouTube middleware currently occupies a
| comfortable niche in the bringup process required to meet
| that figure... but they're ultimately nonessential.
|
| I disagree with this, though I'd love (and genuinely hope)
| to be proven wrong. It's hard for me to imagine starting
| from nothing and building up a profitable following the way
| people have on Youtube without Youtube's userbase and
| infamous "algorithm".
|
| It might just be a matter of semantics, though. I agree
| that content/media existed before Youtube and will exist
| long after it -- but I'm not sure Youtube's niche of non-
| traditional content creators without the money or social
| networks traditionally needed to publish media could do so
| in its absence.
|
| More prosaically, there's a big gulf between starting out,
| and reaching 1,000 true fans throwing some money at you
| every month. Youtube plays a pretty big role IMO in
| bridging that gap, and without it, only people with
| traditional support networks or in higher economic classes
| will be able to afford "doing content creation" full time.
|
| I feel like a common response (and one sort of echoed in
| another reply) is "Good, let's bring the old internet back,
| when people did things for passion and not money". I
| sympathize a lot with this, but I also think a lot of
| content I enjoy is the product of people putting tons of
| time and effort into making "good content" -- time spent
| doing pretty miserable and uninteresting work. So I'm
| inclined to think the end of the "youtube era" will bring
| the end of a certain class of creator.
|
| Not that I think this is preventable, since like others
| here, I think the whole ad thing is unsustainable, and
| we're seeing more and more writing on the wall. Hopefully
| Patreon + co. and more decentralized content aggregators
| like Mastodon can fill the void well enough.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > the alternatives involve... no (automatic) monetization at
| all.
|
| This is 100% what it boils down to. Google is obviously not
| the only advertiser in town, but _if_ the ad bubble pops, so
| does the free content economy on the internet. Some people
| will argue the internet would be better because of it, but
| the transition away from ad-supported viewership would
| decimate the web we know.
| treis wrote:
| Google is the only advertiser in town that matters. There's
| some private clubs you can go to (Facebook's properties,
| Amazon) but for generally placing ads or selling ad space
| on the internet it's Google.
| jchw wrote:
| I'd argue the internet I liked most was decimated by the
| current free content economy, though.
|
| I'm not saying I disagree with you by any means; a lot of
| what we would lose would be a great shame. Only the
| strongest creators could probably find a way to stay alive,
| likely through more direct sponsorship (both Patreon and
| well, traditional direct sponsors. You already see this a
| ton on YouTube anyways.)
|
| I get that the internet will never be as scrappy and
| experimental as it once was, but the way monetization
| spread rewarded _a lot_ of people who thrived off of
| essentially taking free stuff and monetizing it. I mean a
| lot. Think of "prominent" "content creators" and
| "influencers" like Fuck Jerry. In the process of doing
| this, I think all of the fun was milked out of everything.
| Today's internet feels like a giant strip mall.
|
| I really do wonder if this is the best middleground we can
| get.
|
| Of course, if ad-tech does turn out to be more or less a
| giant bubble and that bubble pops, we lose everything
| anyways, without any chance to transition, and all of the
| anguish was for naught. It feels like quite a gamble to
| keep hinging on this so strongly for the best content
| online, so I hope that the patronage model continues to
| grow.
| [deleted]
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| I agree, which is why manually blacklisting them became a
| necessity for me. I loved uBlocklist, and would recommend it
| for anyone not on Kagi.
|
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublacklist/pncfbmi...
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| > I have no idea if I'll be able to locate it through the sea
| of blog SPAM and SEO garbage tomorrow
|
| If I have to sift through one more useless AI-generated/copy-
| paste article where they spend half the damn thing explaining
| the most basic stuff and then _still_ not answering my question
| (or giving a simple "yes/no"), I'm going to lose it. It's not
| even just technical answers. I have to basically type
| "...reddit" or some forum I like to get ANYTHING useful
| anymore. It's even just basic media questions.
|
| Example: "Is there an [IP sequel] being made?"
|
| First 20 results: "Is there an [IP sequel] being made? Read
| more to find out. First what is IP? IP was released in 2012. It
| was made by such and such starring such and such as they go on
| an adventure to do the thing..." _4 paragraphs later_ "There is
| no information on a sequel. Thanks for reading!"
|
| Yes I've learned to spot these as have most folks around here I
| imagine, but holy hell they will eat 2-3 pages of results
| sometimes! It's infuriating!
| telchior wrote:
| This kind of problem isn't just because of search, it's also
| because of content creators. I believe what all content
| creators quickly learn is, on any given topic, the funnel is
| extremely wide on the most introductory knowledge and then
| becomes uselessly narrow as you drill into specific info.
|
| To use a specific example, the other day I was trying to
| learn more about programming shaders. There is an unending
| number of basic level tutorials: what is a shader? There are
| probably 500,000 people searching for that topic. But if I
| want to figure out a UV scrolling texture, I'm screwed,
| there's almost nothing. Because the audience for that is
| maybe 500 people.
|
| There's just no financial (or even reputational!) incentive
| for anyone to write an article / make a video on something
| requiring deeper expertise. There is stuff out there, of
| course, created by the tiny minority of passionate
| enthusiasts or dedicated professionals. Google is really
| searching for a needle in a very, very large haystack. And I
| think Google (and other search) has been more and more
| challenged by that over the years as the internet moved from
| a niche enthusiast place to a mass market place. Particularly
| when all the hay is spending massive amounts of effort on
| trying to pretend to be a needle.
|
| tl;dr I despise using Google (or DuckDuckGo) these days but I
| don't think all the blame should be assigned to the engines,
| they're actually facing a tough problem. (Not that you
| personally were saying that, but this is mainly a thread of
| hating on Google.)
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| >This kind of problem isn't just because of search, it's
| also because of content creators.
|
| See I think this becomes chicken/egg real quick too, though
| I do think Google is more to blame. Content creators are
| responding to the incentives google created. Think back to
| when sites would have all sorts of keywords buried in
| metadata and/or have blogs that were complete nonsense full
| of keywords that weren't easily findable on their sites.
| They did it because they were rewarded. So what did google
| do? They penalized it, and voila! It stopped. This was
| like...2014? Maybe earlier?
|
| Ultimately if google wants better search results they need
| to go back to the drawing board. They need to
| disincentivize blog spam.
| lordnacho wrote:
| I use search for coding a lot, and lately I've noticed it's
| hard to find what I'm after. If I'm looking for some small
| thing like what an sftp command looks like, I don't want an SEO
| essay about why SSH is great and we should all use encryption.
| I just want the example line.
|
| This seems to be what ChatGPT can give me. It doesn't always
| work, but it also doesn't beat around the bush.
| aejnsn wrote:
| 100%. I have found it sooo difficult to trace
| framework/library documentation down that 3-4 years ago was
| first few results. Something has ruined their algorithm.
| quantified wrote:
| Yet.
| _jab wrote:
| Yup, exactly the same experience here. It feels like there's
| been a recent wave of SEO-optimized websites that
| consistently pop up when I google specific errors, but rarely
| have literally anything of substance.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-26 23:02 UTC)