19 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 35.0 ms ] thread
> Instead of giving you precisely what you want, a Google search in 2026 is more likely to give you only what you don’t want.

The youngest Google Search seems like it has a lot in common with the next-youngest Google Search.

i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user.

it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

Also, I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Meta hate me as well. Honestly, if every major tech company dislikes me at this point, I'm starting to suspect it's a 'me' problem.
Breaking news from 2005
As a reminder the mission of Google is:

>Google’s mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Its mission is not to give traffic to websites. If websites are a bad way for users to get information due to endless rambling or obnoxious ads then don't be surprised if that information is made more accessible. It's like if Google Maps didn't have things like business hours hosted within Maps instead of requiring the user to do extra work and find it on the business's website.

While I sympathise and it's a well written article, writers engaging in SEO and clickbait (as they admitted) to drive traffic are just as responsible for the death of the internet. They're bemoaning the loss of traffic but that traffic may have already been stolen from a more appropriate search result that didn't have a team working on SEO.

Also, the irony isn't lost on me that I had a cookie dialogue fill 80% of the screen and this little snippet:

> Early Google didn’t even have ads; it was so clean and pure.

> Advertisement > Article continues below this ad

They don't just want your eyeballs they want your data. They want to track you and give that data to advertisers.

Like I said I do sympathise and maybe it's a necessary evil, but in my opinion all of these sites are just a less successful side of the same coin.

Google Search has been awful for the last couple of years. Good riddance to SEO.
Visiting websites as a human is sooo 2025. We are entering a world where only bots actually fetch primary web content any more. Our gatekeeper overlords will filter, curate, and remix everything for us. This is the next step in the machines taking over.
It's important for everyone to have their own brand. Matt Levine won't be as impacted by this as this writer. You've got to focus on making it easy to find your content and having it delivered to my email is about as convenient as it gets.
Maybe the computer world has been a distributed nightmare of mortgage-driven development for decades now for everyone. Maybe now that the people who were on the inside are not getting that sweet and foolish feeling of being on the inside while everyone else is on the outside, they start to see it's really a monstrous pseudo-intellectual stupidity closer to pop entertainment than science.
>Many people don’t; they’ll get a top-line answer from AI and deem it not worth the trouble to click or scroll any further.

sparing the user the usual experience of visiting some random ad-riddled clickbait mill and trying to extract useful information from ten paragraphs of SEO diarrhea.

>Sites like SFGATE need traffic to survive, and writers like me need those sites to stay alive if we hope to remain gainfully employed by them.

~~learn to code~~ (oops, too late, lol).

You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.
I find it pretty funny, that in an article decrying goggle's abusive behavior, the screenshot they link (which obviously needs to be a video) is a link to a goggle owned property:

> Look at this horrible s—t. Look at it!

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6EBMG8OEBI

No, I'm not going to look at it, and neither should you...

Can someone solve this equation for me.

I give google content and they pay me in traffic.

Why would I give Google my content if they stop paying me for it?