Search Metrics: One Cannot Do Anything Unless One Finds the Info

May 2, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

The search engine optimization crowd bamboozled people with tales of getting to be number one on Google. The SEO experts themselves were tricked. The only way to appear on the first page of search results is to buy an ad. This is the pay-to-play approach to being found online. Now a person cannot do anything, including getting in the building to start one’s first job without searching. The company sent the future wizard an email with the access code. If the new hire cannot locate the access code, she cannot work without going through hoops. Most work or fun is similar. Without an ability to locate specific information online, a person is going to be locked out or just lost in space.


The new employee cannot search her email to locate the access code. No job for her. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, a so-so image without the crazy Grandma says, “You can’t get that image, fatso.”

I read a chunk of content marketing called “Predicted 25% Drop In Search Volume Remains Unclear.” The main idea (I think) is that with generative smart software, a person no longer has to check with Googzilla to get information. In some magical world, a person with a mobile phone will listen as the smart software tells a user what information is needed. Will Apple embrace Microsoft AI or Google AI? Will it matter to the user? Will the number of online queries decrease for Google if Apple decides it loves Redmond types more than Googley types? Nope.

The total number of online queries will continue to go up until the giant search purveyors collapse due to overburdened code, regulatory hassles, or their own ineptitude. But what about the estimates of mid tier consulting firms like Gartner? Hello, do you know that Gartner is essentially a collection of individuals who do the bidding of some work-from-home, self-anointed experts?

Face facts. There is one alleged monopoly controlling search. That is Google. It will take time for an upstart to siphon significant traffic from the constellation of Google services. Even Google’s own incredibly weird approach to managing the company will not be able to prevent people from using the service. Every email search is a search. Every direction in Waze is a search. Every click on a suggested YouTube TikTok knock off is a search. Every click on anything Google is a search. To tidy up the operation, assorted mechanisms for analyzing user behavior provide a fingerprint of users. Advertisers, even if they know they are being given a bit of a casino frippery, have to decide among Amazon, Meta, or, or … Sorry. I can’t think of another non-Google option.

If you want traffic, you can try to pull off a Black Swan event as OpenAI did. But for most organizations, if you want traffic, you pay Google. What about SEO? If the SEO outfit is a Google partner, you are on the Information Highway to Google’s version of Madison Avenue.

But what about the fancy charts and graphs which show Google’s vulnerability? Google’s biggest enemy is Google’s approach to managing its staff, its finances, and its technology. Bing or any other search competitor is going to find itself struggling to survive. Don’t believe me? Just ask the founder of Search2, Neeva, or any other search vendor crushed under Googzilla’s big paw. Unclear? Are you kidding me? Search volume is going to go up until something catastrophic happens. For now, buy Google advertising for traffic. Spend some money with Meta. Use Amazon if you sell fungible things. Google owns most of the traffic. Adjust and quit yapping about some fantasy cooked up by so-called experts.

Stephen E Arnold, May 2, 2024

Is Grandma Google Making Erratic Decisions?

April 24, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Clowny Fish TV is unknown to me. The site published a write up which I found interesting and stuffed full of details I had not seen previously. The April 18, 2024,  essay is “YouTubers Claim YouTube is Very Broken Right Now.” Let’s look at a handful of examples and see if these spark any thoughts in my dinobaby mind. As Vladimir Shmondenko says, “Let’s go.”


Grandma Googzilla has her view of herself. Nosce teipsum, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s your security today?

Here’s a statement to consider:

Over the past 72 hours, YouTubers have been complaining on X about everything from delayed comments to a noticeable decline in revenue and even videos being removed by Google for nebulous reasons after being online for years.

Okay, sluggish functions from the video ad machine. I have noticed either slow-loading or dead video ads; that is, the ads take a long time (maybe a second or two to 10 seconds to show up) or nothing happens and a “Skip” button just appears. No ad to skip. I wonder, “Do the advertisers pay for a non-displayed ad followed by a skip?” I assume there is some fresh Google word salad available in the content cafeteria, but I have not spotted it. Those arrests have, however, caught my attention.

Another item from the essay:

In fact, many longtime YouTube content creators have announced their retirements from the platform over the past year, and I have to wonder if these algorithm changes aren’t a driving force behind that. There’s no guarantee that there will be room for the “you” in YouTube six months from now, let alone six years from now.

I am not sure I know many of the big-time content creators. I do know that the famous Mr. Beast has formed a relationship with the Amazon Twitch outfit. Is that megastar hedging his bets? I think he is. Those videos cost big bucks and could be on broadcast TV if there were a functioning broadcast television service in the US.

How about this statement:

On top of the algorithm shift, and on top of the monetization hit, Google is now reportedly removing old videos that violate their current year Terms of Service.

Shades of the 23andMe approach to Terms of Service. What struck me is that one of my high school history teachers  — I think his name was Earl Skaggs — railed against Joseph Stalin’s changing Russian history and forcing textbooks to be revised to present Mr. Stalin’s interpretation of reality. Has Google management added changing history to their bag of tricks. I know that arresting employees is a useful management tool, but I have been relying on news reports. Maybe those arrests were “fake news.” Nothing surprises me where online information is in the mix.

I noted this remarkable statement in the Clown Fish TV essay:

Google was the glue that held all these websites together and let people get found. We’re seeing what a world looks like without Google. Because for many content creators and journalists, it’ll be practically worthless going forward.

I have selected a handful of items. The original article includes screenshots, quotes from people whom I assume are “experts” or whatever passes as an authority today, and a of Google algorithm questioning. But any of the Googlers with access to the algorithm can add a tweak or create a “wrapper” to perform a specific task. I am not sure too many Googlers know how to fiddle the plumbing anymore. Some of the “clever” code is now more than 25 years old. (People make fun of mainframes. Should more Kimmel humor be directed at 25 year old Google software?)

Observations are indeed warranted:

  1. I read Google criticism on podcasts; I read criticism of Google online. Some people are falling out of love with the Google.
  2. Google muffed the bunny with its transformer technology. By releasing software as open source, the outfit may have unwittingly demonstrated how out of touch its leadership team is and opened the door to some competitors able to move more quickly than Grandma Google. Microsoft. Davos. AI. Ah, yes.
  3. The Sundar & Prabhakar School of Strategic Thinking has allowed Google search to become an easy target. Metasearch outfits recycling poor old Bing results are praised for being better than Google. That’s quite an achievement and a verification that some high-school science club management methods don’t work as anticipated. I won’t mention arresting employees again. Oh, heck. I will. Google called the police on its own staff. Slick. Professional.

Net net: Clown Fish TV definitely has presented a useful image of Grandma Google and her video behaviors.

Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024

Perplexed at Perplexity? It Is Just the Need for Money. Relax.

April 5, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Gen-AI Search Engine Perplexity Has a Plan to Sell Ads” makes it clear that the dynamic world of wildly over-hyped smart software is somewhat fluid. Pivoting from “No, never” to “Yes, absolutely” might catch some by surprise. But this dinobaby is ready for AI’s morphability. Artificial intelligence means something to the person using the term. There may be zero correlation between the meaning of AI in the mind of any other people. Absent the Vulcan mind meld, people have to adapt. Morphability is important.


The dinobaby analyst is totally confused. First, say one thing. Then, do the opposite. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough. How’s that AI reorganization going?

I am thinking about AI because Perplexity told Adweek that despite obtaining $73 million in Series B funding, the company will start selling ads. This is no big deal for Google which slips unmarked ads into its short video streams. But Perplexity was not supposed to sell ads. Yeah, well, that’s no longer an operative concept.

The write up says:

Perplexity also links sources in the response while suggesting related questions users might want to ask. These related questions, which account for 40% of Perplexity’s queries, are where the company will start introducing native ads, by letting brands influence these questions,

Sounds rock solid, but I think that the ads will have a bit of morphability; that is, when big bucks are at stake, those ads are going to go many places. With an alleged 10 million monthly active users, some advertisers will want those ads shoved down the throat of anything that looks like a human or bot with buying power.

Advertisers care about “brand safety.” But those selling ads care about selling ads. That’s why exciting ads turn up in quite interesting places.

I have a slight distrust for pivoters. But that’s just an old dinobaby, an easily confused dinobaby at that.

Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2024

Relevance: Rest in Peace

February 16, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

It is Friday, and I am tired of looking at computer generated news with lines like “Insert paragraphs here”. No, don’t bother. The issues I am experiencing with SmartNews and Flipboard are more than annoyances. These, like other aggregation services, are becoming less productive than reading random Reddit posts or the information posted on Blackmagic forum boards. Everyone is trying to find a way to make a buck before the bank account says, “Yo, transaction denied.”


Marketers will find that buying traffic enables many opportunities. Thanks MSFT Copilot whatever. Good enough.

I read “Meta Is Passing on the Apple Tax for Boosted Posts to Advertisers.” What’s the big point in the pontificating online service? How about this passage:

Meta says those who want to boost posts through its iOS apps will now need to add prepaid funds and pay for them before their boosted posts are published. Meta will charge an extra 30 percent to cover Apple’s transaction fee for preloading funds in iOS as well.

My interpretation is: If you want traffic, you will pay for it. And you will pay other fees as well. And if you don’t like it, give those free press release services a whirl.

So what?

  1. The pay-for-traffic model is now the best and fastest way to get traffic or clicks. Free rides, I think, have been replaced with tolls.
  2. Next up will be subscriptions to those who want traffic. Just pay a lump sum and you will get traffic. The traffic may be worthless, but for those who like to play roulette, you may get a winner. Remember the house owns zero and double zero plus whatever you lose. Great deal, right?
  3. The popular click is likely to be shaped, weaponized, or disinformationized.

Net net: Relevance will be quite difficult to define outside of a transactional relationship. Will this matter? Nope because most users accept what a service returns as relevant, accurate, and reliable.

Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2024

Google and the Company It Keeps: Money Is Money

January 10, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

If this recent report from Adalytics is accurate, not even Google understands how and where its Google Search Partners (GSP) program is placing ads for both its advertising clients and itself. A piece at Adotat discusses “The Google Exposé: Peeling Back the Layers of Ad Network Mysteries.” Google promises customers of this highly lucrative program their ads will only appear alongside content they would approve of. However, writer Pesach Lattin charges:

“The program, shrouded in opacity, is alleged to be a haven for brand-unsafe ad inventory, a digital Wild West where ads could unwittingly appear alongside content on pornography sites, right-wing fringe publishers, and even on sites sanctioned by the White House in nations like Iran and Russia.”

How could this happen? Google expands its advertising reach by allowing publishers to integrate custom searches into their sites. If a shady publisher has done so, there’s no way to know short of stumbling across it: unlike Bing, Google does not disclose placement URLs. To make matters worse, Google search advertisers are automatically enrolled GSP with no clear way to opt out. But surely the company at least protects itself, right? The post continues:

“Surprisingly, even Google’s own search ads weren’t immune to these problematic placements. This startling fact raises serious questions about the awareness and control Google’s ad buyers have over their own system. It appears that even within Google, there’s a lack of clarity about the inner workings of their ad technology. According to TechCrunch, Laura Edelson, an assistant professor of computer science at Northeastern University, known for her work in algorithmic auditing and transparency, echoes this sentiment. She suggests that Google may not fully grasp the complexities of its own ad network, losing sight of how and where its ads are displayed.”

Well that is not good. Lattin points out the problem, and the lack of transparency around it, mean Google and its clients may be unwittingly breaking ethical advertising standards and even violating the law. And they might never know or, worse, a problematic placement could spark a PR or legal nightmare. Ah, Google.

Cynthia Murrell, January 10, 2023

Googley Gems: 2024 Starts with Some Hoots

January 9, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Another year and I will turn 80. I have seen some interesting things in my 58 year work career, but a couple of black swans have flown across my radar system. I want to share what I find anomalous or possibly harbingers of the new normal.


A dinobaby examines some Alphabet Google YouTube gems. The work is not without its AGonY, however. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.

First up is another “confession” or “tell all” about the wild, wonderful Alphabet Google YouTube or AGY. (Wow, I caught myself. I almost typed “agony”, not AGY. I am indeed getting old.)

I read “A Former Google Manager Says the Tech Giant Is Rife with Fiefdoms and the Creeping Failure of Senior Leaders Who Weren’t Making Tough Calls.” The headline is a snappy one. I like the phrase “creeping failure.” Nifty image like melting ice and tundra releasing exciting extinct biological bits and everyone’s favorite gas. Let me highlight one point in the article:

[Google has] “lots of little fiefdoms” run by engineers who didn’t pay attention to how their products were delivered to customers. …this territorial culture meant Google sometimes produced duplicate apps that did the same thing or missed important features its competitors had.

I disagree. Plenty of small Web site operators complain about decisions which destroy their businesses. In fact, I am having lunch with one of the founders of a firm deleted by Google’s decider. Also, I wrote about a fellow in India who is likely to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged Googlers because he shoots videos of India’s temples and suggests they have meanings beyond those inculcated in certain castes.

My observation is that happy employees don’t run conferences to explain why Google is a problem or write these weird “let me tell you what life is really like” essays. Something is definitely being signaled. Could it be distress, annoyance, or down-home anger? The “gem”, therefore, is AGY’s management AGonY.

Second, AGY is ramping up its thinking about monetization of its “users.” I noted “Google Bard Advanced Is Coming, But It Likely Won’t Be Free” reports:

Google Bard Advanced is coming, and it may represent the company’s first attempt to charge for an AI chatbot.

And why not? The Red Alert hooted because MIcrosoft’s 2022 announcement of its OpenAI tie up made clear that the Google was caught flat footed. Then, as 2022 flowed, the impact of ChatGPT-like applications made three facets of the Google outfit less murky: [a] Google was disorganized because it had Google Brain and DeepMind which was expensive and confusing in the way Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First Routine” made people laugh. [b] The malaise of a cooling technology frenzy yielded to AI craziness which translated into some people saying, “Hey, I can use this stuff for answering questions.” Oh, oh, the search advertising model took a bit of a blindside chop block. And [c] Google found itself on the wrong side of assorted legal actions creating a model for other legal entities to explore, probe, and probably use to extract Google’s life blood — Money. Imagine Google using its data to develop effective subscription campaigns. Wow.

And, the final Google gem is that Google wants to behave like a nation state. “Google Wrote a Robot Constitution to Make Sure Its New AI Droids Won’t Kill Us” aims to set the White House and other pretenders to real power straight. Shades of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. The write up reports:

DeepMind programmed the robots to stop automatically if the force on its joints goes past a certain threshold and included a physical kill switch human operators can use to deactivate them.

You have to embrace the ethos of a company which does not want its “inventions” to kill people. For me, the message is one that some governments’ officials will hear: Need a machine to perform warfighting tasks?

Small gems but gems not the less. AGY, please, keep ‘em coming.

Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2024

Meta Never Met a Kid Data Set It Did Not Find Useful

January 5, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Adults are ripe targets for data exploitation in modern capitalism. While adults fight for their online privacy, most have rolled over and accepted the inevitable consumer Big Brother. When big tech companies go after monetizing kids, however, that’s when adults fight back like rabid bears. Engadget writes about how Meta is fighting against the federal government about kids’ data: “Meta Sues FTC To Block New Restrictions On Monetizing Kids’ Data.”

Meta is taking the FTC to court to prevent them from reopening a 2020 $5 billion landmark privacy case and to allow the company to monetize kids’ data on its apps. Meta is suing the FTC, because a federal judge ruled that the FTC can expand with new, more stringent rules about how Meta is allowed to conduct business.

Meta claims the FTC is out for a power grab and is acting unconstitutionally, while the FTC reports the claimants consistently violates the 2020 settlement and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. FTC wants its new rules to limit Meta’s facial recognition usage and initiate a moratorium on new products and services until a third party audits them for privacy compliance.

Meta is not a huge fan of the US Federal Trade Commission:

“The FTC has been a consistent thorn in Meta’s side, as the agency tried to stop the company’s acquisition of VR software developer Within on the grounds that the deal would deter "future innovation and competitive rivalry." The agency dropped this bid after a series of legal setbacks. It also opened up an investigation into the company’s VR arm, accusing Meta of anti-competitive behavior."

The FTC is doing what government agencies are supposed to do: protect its citizens from greedy and harmful practices like those from big business. The FTC can enforce laws and force big businesses to pay fines, put leaders in jail, or even shut them down. But regulators have been decades ramping up to take meaningful action. The result? The thrashing over kiddie data.

Whitney Grace, January 5, 2024

Does Amazon Do Questionable Stuff? Sponsored Listings? Hmmm.

January 4, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Amazon, eBay, other selling platforms allow vendors to buy sponsored ads or listings. Sponsored ads or listings promote products and services to the top of search results. It’s similar to how Google sells ads. Unfortunately Google’s search results are polluted with more sponsored ads than organic results. Sponsored ads might not be a wise investment. Pluralistic explains that sponsored ads are really a huge waste of money: “Sponsored Listings Are A Ripoff For Sellers.”

Amazon relies on a payola sponsored ad system, where sellers bid to be the top-ranked in listings even if their products don’t apply to a search query. Payola systems are illegal but Amazon makes $31 billion annually from its system. The problem is that the $31 billion is taken from Amazon sellers who pay it in fees for the privilege to sell on the platform. Sellers then recoup that money from consumers and prices are raised across all the markets. Amazon controls pricing on the Internet.

Another huge part of a seller’s budget is for Amazon advertising. If sellers don’t buy ads in searches that correspond to their products, they’re kicked off the first page. The Amazon payola system only benefits the company and sellers who pay into the payola. Three business-school researchers Vibhanshu Abhishek, Jiaqi Shi and Mingyu Joo studied the harmful effects of payolas:

“After doing a lot of impressive quantitative work, the authors conclude that for good sellers, showing up as a sponsored listing makes buyers trust their products less than if they floated to the top of the results "organically." This means that buying an ad makes your product less attractive than not buying an ad. The exception is sellers who have bad products – products that wouldn’t rise to the top of the results on their own merits. The study finds that if you buy your mediocre product’s way to the top of the results, buyers trust it more than they would if they found it buried deep on page eleventy-million, to which its poor reviews, quality or price would normally banish it. But of course, if you’re one of those good sellers, you can’t simply opt not to buy an ad, even though seeing it with the little "AD" marker in the thumbnail makes your product less attractive to shoppers. If you don’t pay the danegeld, your product will be pushed down by the inferior products whose sellers are only too happy to pay ransom.”

It’s getting harder to compete and make a living on online selling platforms. It would be great if Amazon sided with the indy sellers and quit the payola system. That will never happen.

Whitney Grace, January 4, 2024

Big Tech, Big Fakes, Bigger Money: What Will AI Kill?

December 7, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I don’t read The Hollywood Reporter. I did one job for a Hollywood big wheel. That was enough for me. I don’t drink. I don’t take drugs unless prescribed by my comic book addicted medical doctor in rural Kentucky. I don’t dress up and wear skin bronzers in the hope that my mobile will buzz. I don’t stay out late. I don’t fancy doing things which make my ethical compass buzz more angrily than my mobile phone. Therefore, The Hollywood Reporter does not speak to me.

One of my research team sent me a link to “The Rise of AI-Powered Stars: Big Money and Risks.” I scanned the write up and then I went through it again. By golly, The Hollywood Reporter hit on an “AI will kill us” angle not getting as much publicity as Sam AI-Man’s minimal substance interview.


Can a techno feudalist generate new content using what looks like “stars” or “well known” people? Probably. A payoff has to be within sight. Otherwise, move on to the next next big thing. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough cartoon.

Please, read the original and complete article in The Hollywood Reporter. Here’s the passage which rang the insight bell for me:

tech firms are using the power of celebrities to introduce the underlying technology to the masses. “There’s a huge possible business there and I think that’s what YouTube and the music companies see, for better or for worse

Let’s think about these statements.

First, the idea of consumerizing AI for the masses is interesting. However, I interpret the insight as having several force vectors:

  1. Become the plumbing for the next wave of user generated content (USG)
  2. Get paid by users AND impose an advertising tax on the USG
  3. Obtain real-time data about the efficacy of specific smart generation features so that resources can be directed to maintain a “moat” from would-be attackers.

Second, by signing deals with people who to me are essentially unknown, the techno giants are digging some trenches and putting somewhat crude asparagus obstacles where the competitors are like to drive their AI machines. The benefits include:

  1. First hand experience with the stars’ ego system responds
  2. The data regarding cost of signing up a star, payouts, and selling ads against the content
  3. Determining what push back exists [a] among fans and [b] the historical middlemen who have just been put on notice that they can find their future elsewhere.

Finally, the idea of the upside and the downside for particular entities and companies is interesting. There will be winners and losers. Right now, Hollywood is a loser. TikTok is a winner. The companies identified in The Hollywood Reporter want to be winners — big winners.

I may have to start paying more attention to this publication and its stories. Good stuff. What will AI kill? The cost of some human “talent”?

Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2023

Google and X: Shall We Again Love These Bad Dogs?

November 30, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Two stories popped out of my blah newsfeed this morning (Thursday, November 30, 2023). I want to highlight each and offer a handful of observations. Why? I am a dinobaby, and I remember the adults who influenced me telling me to behave, use common sense, and follow the rules of “good” behavior. Dull? Yes. A license to cut corners and do crazy stuff? No.

The first story, if it is indeed accurate, is startling. “Google Caught Placing Big-Brand Ads on Hardcore Porn Sites, Report Says” includes a number of statements about the Google which make me uncomfortable. For instance:

advertisers who feel there’s no way to truly know if Google is meeting their brand safety standards are demanding more transparency from Google. Ideally, moving forward, they’d like access to data confirming where exactly their search ads have been displayed.

Where are big brand ads allegedly appearing? How about “undesirable sites.” What comes to mind for me is adult content. There are some quite sporty ads on certain sites that would make a Methodist Sunday school teacher blush.


These two big dogs are having a heck of a time ruining the living room sofa. Neither dog knows that the family will not be happy. These are dogs, not the mental heirs of Immanuel Kant. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. The stuffing looks like soap bubbles, but you are “good enough,” the benchmark for excellence today.

But the shocking factoid is that Google does not provide a way for advertisers to know where their ads have been displayed. Also, there is a possibility that Google shared ad revenue with entities which may be hostile to the interests of the US. Let’s hope that the assertions reported in the article are inaccurate. But if the display of big brand ads on sites with content which could conceivably erode brand value, what exactly is Google’s system doing? I will return to this question in the observations section of this essay.

The second article is equally shocking to me.

Elon Musk Tells Advertisers: ‘Go F*** Yourself’” reports that the EV and rocket man with a big hole digging machine allegedly said about advertisers who purchase promotions on (Twitter?):

Don’t advertise,” … “If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go f*** yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.” … ” If advertisers don’t return, Musk said, “what this advertising boycott is gonna do is it’s gonna kill the company.”

The cited story concludes with this statement:

The full interview was meandering and at times devolved into stream of consciousness responses; Musk spoke for triple the time most other interviewees did. But the questions around Musk’s own actions, and the resulting advertiser exodus — the things that could materially impact X — seemed to garner the most nonchalant answers. He doesn’t seem to care.

Two stories. Two large and successful companies. What can a person like myself conclude, recognizing that there is a possibility that both stories may have some gaps and flaws:

  1. There is a disdain for old-fashioned “values” related to acceptable business practices
  2. The thread of pornography and foul language runs through the reports. The notion of well-crafted statements and behaviors is not part of the Google and X game plan in my view
  3. The indifference of the senior managers at both companies seeps through the descriptions of how Google and X operate strikes me as intentional.

Now why?

I think that both companies are pushing the edge of business behavior. Google obviously is distributing ad inventory anywhere it can to try and create a market for more ads. Instead of telling advertisers where their ads are displayed or giving an advertiser control over where ads should appear, Google just displays the ads. The staggering irrelevance of the ads I see when I view a YouTube video is evidence that Google knows zero about me despite my being logged in and using some Google services. I don’t need feminine undergarments, concealed weapons products, or bogus health products.

With the dismissive attitude of the firm’s senior management reeks of disdain. Why would someone advertise on a system which  promotes behaviors that are detrimental to one’s mental set up?

The two companies are different, but in a way they are similar in their approach to users, customers, and advertisers. Something has gone off the rails in my opinion at both companies. It is generally a good idea to avoid riding trains which are known to run on bad tracks, ignore safety signals, and demonstrate remarkably questionable behavior.

What if the write ups are incorrect? Wow, both companies are paragons. What if both write ups are dead accurate? Wow, wow, the big dogs are tearing up the living room sofa. More than “bad dog” is needed to repair the furniture for living.

Stephen E Arnold, November 30, 2023

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta