Insights into Google AMP: A Glimpse Inside the Walled Garden
March 25, 2021
Google is talking privacy. Google is pushing accelerated Web pages. Google is doing what it can to stifle third party cookies. The datasphere will be a better, more tidy place, right?
Navigate to “Google AMP. A 70% Drop in Our Conversion Rate.” Notice these points:
- A technical adept tried to follow the Google rules and experienced a decline in conversion rates
- The procedure outlined in the write up will be a challenge for many online publishers to follow
- The write up does not explain why these positive initiatives of the Google have turned out to have a couple of negatives.
Google is moving access to content produced by certain third parties into its walled garden. The goal is to obtain control and extract maximum information. The silliness about relevance and consistency should be placed in the wooden shed in the corner of the walled garden behind the statue of Googzilla.
For many Facebook is the Internet. That Facebook content is what users generate, others want, and Facebook monetizes.
Google wants this set up too. Get amped up on that, gentle reader. Plus, with increased legal scrutiny, the mom and pop online ad company has to hustle along.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2021
Google and Obfuscation: Who Cares?
March 24, 2021
Google began the process of obfuscating the source of Web pages years ago. There were services which would convert a weird Google version of a PDF’s url into something one could use in a footnote. I have one tool which performs this function now, but I am reluctant to identify it. Why? Google will kill it.
I noted the GitHub item “Addon Unavailable on Google Chrome” which explains that ClearURLs were blocked by Google seven hours ago. The short item explains:
ClearURLs has made it to its mission to prevent tracking via URLs and that’s how Google makes money.
Yep, this is a good statement.
However, let me add several observations:
- Google, like Facebook, IS the Internet for many people. Both companies want to keep users within the sheep pen. The reasons include tracking, monetization, and, oh, did I mention, tracking?
- Looking up search results adds computational cost; therefore, serving Google identified as relevant content from caches near a user makes economic sense. How does one know the “provenance” of a Google item? Well, it’s from Google, so it has to be good.
- The walled garden has been part of the Google system and method for many years. I wrote about this years ago in the Google Legacy and expanded on some of the ideas in Google Version 2.0.
Net net: Thumbtypers, seniors in a haze, and most online “users” are blissfully unaware of the power of obfuscation. In the good old days, one had a url which provided the source domain and a mostly human readable string pointing to the page.
Hasta la vista. The corral is a clean, well lighted place for those who own the ranch. Who cares? Hey, visit a sheep ranch and let me know how many out of flock sheep there are. What happens to those sheep? Sheep dogs chase them back to the flock or wolves just eat the recalcitrant.
Why not think in terms of a digital delicacy?
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2021
Google: Its Feedback Loop Explained
March 23, 2021
I read “Google Profits from Spreading Fake News — Here’s How.” Google’s been leveraging its “inspiration” from Yahoo-GoTo-Overture ad innovations for decades. Imagine my surprise when the “truth” of feedback was finally revealed. (Yep, it took decades for whiz kids to crack the somewhat high-school auditorium sound system concept.)
Here’s a passage I found revelatory about how little awareness “expert” Google watchers know about the systems and methods of the online ad giant:
When you click on a search result, the search algorithm learns that the link you clicked is relevant for your search query. This is called relevance feedback. This feedback helps the search engine give higher weight to that link for that query in the future. If enough people click on that link enough times, thus giving strong relevance feedback, that website starts coming up higher in search results for that and related queries. People are more likely to click on links shown up higher on the search results list. This creates a positive feedback loop – the higher a website shows up, the more the clicks, and that in turn makes that website move higher or keep it higher.
What other Google magic awaits discovery?
Remarkable. That feedback has baffled for so long.
Stephen E Arnold, March 23, 2021
Google and Cookies: Crafting Quite Tasty Bait
March 19, 2021
I read “Alphabet: Five Things We Know about Google’s Ad Changes after Cookies.” I approached the write up with some interest. Cookies have been around for a long time. The reason? They allowed a number of interesting functions, including tracking, cross correlation of user actions, and a covert existence.
Now, no more Google cookies.
The write up explains what Google wants keen observers, real journalists, and thumbtypers to know; to wit:
- Privacy is really, really important to Google—now. Therefore, the GOOG won’t support third party cookies. Oh, shucks, what about cross site tracking? Yeah, what about it?
- Individuals can be targeted. Those with a rifle shot orientation have to provide data to the Google and use the Google software system called “customer match.” Yeah, ad narrowcasting lives.
- Google will draw some boundaries about its data leveraging for advertisers. But what about “publishers”? Hey, Google has some special rules. Yeah, a permeable membrane for certain folks.
- FLOC makes non-personalized ad targeting possible. I want to write, “You’ve been FLOC’ed” but I shall not. Yeah, FLOC. But you can always try FLEDGE. So “You’ve been FLEDGED” is a possibility.
How’s this work? The write up does not shed any light. Here’s a question for a “real news” outfit to tackle:
How many data points does a disambiguation system require to identify a name, location, and other personal details of a single individual?
Give up. Better not. Oh, the bait, pivoted cookies. Great for catching prospects I think.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2021
Eschewing the Google: Career Suicide or Ethical Savvy?
March 19, 2021
I spotted an interested quote in Wired’s “The Departure of 2 Google AI Researchers Spurs More Fallout.” Here’s the quote:
“Google has shown an astounding lack of leadership and commitment to open science, ethics, and diversity in their treatment of the Ethical AI team.”
It’s been several months since the Google engaged in Gebru-gibberish; that is, the firm’s explanations about the departure of a PhD who wrote a research paper suggesting that the Google’s methods may not be a-okay.
The Google is pressing forward with smart software, which is, the future of the company. I thought online advertising was, but what do I know.
The article also mentions that a high profile AI researcher would not attend a Google AI event. The reason? Here’s what Wired reports:
Friday morning, Kress-Gazit emailed the event’s organizers to say she would not attend because she didn’t wish to be associated with Google research in any way. “Not only is the research process and integrity of Google tainted, but it is clear, by the way these women were treated, that all the diversity talk of the company is performative,” she wrote. Kress-Gazit says she didn’t expect her action to have much effect on Google, or her own future work, but she wanted to show solidarity with Gebru and Mitchell, their team, and their research agenda.
A few years ago, professionals would covet a Google tchotchke like a mouse pad or a flashing Google LED pin. (My tarnished and went dead years ago.) Now high profile academics are unfriending Messrs. Brin and Page online ad machine.
Interesting shift in attitude toward the high school science club company in a few pulses of Internet time.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2021
Google Road Kill: Legal Eagles Circle Data Incognita
March 17, 2021
I read “Google Must Face Suit over Snooping on Incognito Browsing.” Google created the “incognito” mode to give users of Chrome a way to browse privately. The write up states:
Google failed to kill a lawsuit alleging that it secretly scoops up troves of internet data even if users browse in “Incognito” mode to keep their search activity private.
What happens when marketing to stimulate more useful clicks collides with the reality of constant data collection?
This type of legal position it seems:
“The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing mode,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, wrote in her ruling.
Google, according to the article, took this position:
Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.
But Google users have to agree to Google policies. These policies seems to give the friendly, mom and pop online ad company license to capture user information. Incognito, logically, does not mean invisible. Ergo, user activity is, logically, visible.
If you are Googley, you will understand the line of reasoning.
Several observations:
- The explanation is rhetorically similar to the Gibru-gibberish output with regard to a former Googler’s research paper about “ethics”
- The use of incognito mode provides a useful item of metadata which may of use to some analytic routines used by the mom and pop online ad company, its partners, and its developers
- The involvement of the courts is part of the mom and pop, online ad company’s strategy of do, deflect, and delay via marketing and legal activities.
The hitch in the git along is that users and regulators are starting to look at the mom and pop online ad agency as a less friendly entity today than it was in the years after the company’s initial public offering.
This perception shift is incorrect. Google has been consistent in its game plan, methods, and embrace of do, deflect, and delay.
What worked in the past, however, seems to be manifesting stress fractures; for example, the interesting criticism of Microsoft and the giving in to a mere country like Australia for news content.
Litigation is expensive, and Google has the motivation and the means to wear down opponents in costly, time consuming, and complex legal engagements. Not every Google opponent has the grit of Oracle to joust about Java. In the absence of meaningful regulation, Google’s logic is likely to keep those legal eagles circling in the hopes of digital road kill upon which to fatten themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Alphabet Google: Just Helping the Public
March 17, 2021
I usually don’t read insurance industry trade publications. Decades ago I brushed into the world of “real” insurance, and I have a deep aversion for this industry. Betting on death is not my thing, but those big insurers are a jolly group.
I read “Alphabet’s Waymo Says Its Tech Would Avoid Fatal Human Crashes.” For convenience, I will refer to Alphabet Waymo with its “real” name: The Google.
The write up explains:
The autonomous-car artificial intelligence from Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo avoided or mitigated crashes in most of a set of virtually recreated fatal accidents, according to a white paper the company published Monday.
This is lingo for a model, just like the ones “real” MBAs and alleged “data scientists” run using Excel or a facsimile on steroids. The model ingests assumptions and data. The wizard at the keyboard pretty much plugs in threshold values and checks the output. Need a little more oomph; change the threshold. Once the numbers flow. Bingo. Good to go.
What I found interesting was this passage in the insurance industry centric PR piece of marketing collateral:
Waymo says it published the study for the benefit of the public, rather than regulators specifically.
But can you die riding in a smart EV from The Google?
Absolutely. The write up reports:
The Driver system failed to avoid or mitigate simulated accidents only when the autonomous car was struck from behind, according to the study.
No problems. Adjust those actuarial tables accordingly. Come to think of it, “Why use human actuaries?” Take the output from The Google’s model and pump it into a smart analytics program and let ‘er rip.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
The Google: Disrupting Education in the Covid Era
March 15, 2021
I thought the Covid thing disrupted education. As a result, Google’s video conferencing system failed to seize an opportunity. Even poor, confused Microsoft put some effort into Teams. Sure, Teams is not the most secure or easy to use video conferencing service, but it has more features than Google has chat apps and ad options. Google also watched the Middle Kingdom’s favorite video service “zoom” right into a great big lead. Arguably, Google’s video conferencing tool should have hooked into the Chromebook, which is in the hands of some students. But what’s happened? Zoom, zoom, zoom.
I read this crisp headline: “Inside Google’s Plan to Disrupt the College Degree (Exclusive). Get a First Look at Google’s New Certificate Programs and a New Feature of Google Search Designed to Help Job Seekers Everywhere.”
Wow. The write up is an enthusiastic extension of Google Gibru-ish. Here’s why:
- Two candidates. One is a PhD from Princeton with a degree in computer science. The other is a minority certificate graduate. Both compete for the same job. Which candidate gets the job?
- One candidate, either Timnit Gebru or Margaret Mitchell. Both complete a Google certification program. Will these individuals get a fair shake and maybe get hired?
- Many female candidates from India. Some are funded by Google’s grant to improve opportunities for Indian females. How many will get Google jobs? [a] 80 to 99 percent, [b] 60 to 79 percent, [c] fewer than 60 percent? (I am assuming this grant and certificate thing are more than a tax deduction or hand waving.)
High school science club management decisions are fascinating to me.
Got your answers? I have mine.
For the PhD versus the certificate holder, the answer is it depends. A PhD with non Googley notions about ethical AI is likely to be driving an Uber. The certificate holder with the right mental orientation gets to play Foosball and do Googley things.
For the Gebru – Mitchell question, my answer is neither. Female, non-Googley, and already Xooglers. Find your future elsewhere is what I intuit.
And the females in India. Hard to say. The country is far away. The $20 million or so is too little. The cultural friction within the still existing castes are too strong. Maybe a couple is my guess.
In short, Google can try to disrupt education. But Covid has disrupted education. Another outfit has zoomed into chinks in the Google carapace. So marketing it is. It may work. Google is indeed Google.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2021
Encomium for Google AI: But What about the Ethics Issue?
March 9, 2021
The comments attached to a 2020 essay “Paths to the Future: A Year at Google Brain” are effusive. I noticed that there was no reference to the personnel issues roiling Google. The word “ethics” does not appear in the write up. Several statements caught my attention. Here these are with my question or comment in italics.
- “Brain was a magnet for Google’s celebrity employees.” Two tier system? Yep, the celebrities and the others. For the author, this celebrity thing is exciting. For the others, it may be the root of discontent among the non-celebrity employees. Remarkable revelation from a young employee with little work experience in the Google environment.
- “Google is an “AI-first” company, with the company seeking to implement machine learning in nearly everything do.” Smart software is important. It seems obvious to me that anyone questioning the fairness of such smart software is not going to fit into the celebrity category. Thus, a researcher with data suggesting systemic bias is a no-go. Hasta la vista, Dr. Gibru. The message is get with the program or get gone.
- “The culture of Google Brain reminded me of what I’ve read about Xerox PARC.” Yep, the Xerox. The famous PARC. Ethernet, the mouse, bouncy visualizations. Just zero common sense when commercialization was required. Mr. Jobs paid a visit. The wizard showed off. Mr. Jobs created a reasonably successful company; Xerox PARC. A legend, just no Apple like commercial success with the graphical interface and the zippy Alto.
These three statements appear in the introduction to the essay. They are important for several reasons:
First, Google’s class system is evident and one of the first things the young wizard noticed. The two tier structure enshrines the high school science club approach to managing the firm.
Second, AI is a big deal at Google. Anyone not getting in line is headed for the door.
Third, the PARC touchstone makes it clear that inventing the future and doing cool things is the real work of the celebrity engineers.
What’s this mean for the lesser folk at Google? Unionization, push back, insubordination, and scorn for rah rah essays that make the Googleplex and the GOOG into just the most special company.
Autographed pictures? Probably coming in the near future as Google works to generate non-ad revenue. And ethics? Sure, the celebrity engineers ponder that issue 24×7.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2021
Google Gets Kicked Out of Wizard Class: Gibru Jibberish to Follow
March 5, 2021
I read “AI Ethics Research Conference Suspends Google Sponsorship.” Imagine, a science club type organization suspended. Assuming the “real” and ad-littered story is accurate, here’s the scoop:
The ACM Conference for Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) has decided to suspend its sponsorship relationship with Google, conference sponsorship co-chair and Boise State University assistant professor Michael Ekstrand confirmed today. The organizers of the AI ethics research conference came to this decision a little over a week after Google fired Ethical AI lead Margaret Mitchell and three months after the firing of Ethical AI co-lead Timnit Gebru. Google has subsequently reorganized about 100 engineers across 10 teams, including placing Ethical AI under the leadership of Google VP Marian Croak.
The Association for Computing Machinery no less. How many Googlers and Xooglers are in this ACM entity? How many Google and Xoogle papers has the ACM accepted? Now suspended. Yikes, just a high school punishment for an outfit infused with the precepts of high school science club management and behavior.
What’s interesting is the injection of the notion of “ethical.” The world’s largest education and scientific organization is not into talking, understanding the Google point of view, or finding common ground.
Disruptors, losers, and non-fitting wizards and wizardettes are not appropriate for the ethic sub group of ACM. Oh, is that ethical? Good question.
But ACM knows who writes checks. The ad besotted article states:
Putting Google sponsorship on hold doesn’t mean the end of sponsorship from Big Tech companies, or even Google itself. DeepMind, another sponsor of the FAccT conference that incurred an AI ethics controversy in January, is also a Google company. Since its founding in 2018, FAccT has sought funding from Big Tech sponsors like Google and Microsoft, along with the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. An analysis released last year that compares Big Tech funding of AI ethics research to Big Tobacco’s history of funding health research found that nearly 60% of researchers at four prominent universities have taken money from major tech companies.
Should I raise another question about the ethics of this wallet sensitive posture? Nah. Money talks.
I find the blip on the ethical radar screen quite amusing. One learns each day what really matters in the world of computers and smart software. That’s a plus.
I am waiting for Google Gibru gibberish to explain the situation. I am all ears.
Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
